LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY   EXCHANGE 

Class 


t-xj^-k     ( 


\2>o 


IOWA  ECONOMIC  HISTORY  SERIES 

EDITED  BY  BENJAMIN  F.  SHAMBAUGH 


LABOR    LEGISLATION    IN    IOWA 


IOWA     ECONOMIC     HISTORY     SERIES 
EDITED     BY     BENJAMIN     F.     SHAMBAUGH 


HISTORY  OF 

LABOR    LEGISLATION 

IN  IOWA 


BY 
E.    H.    DOWNEY 


OP  THE 

UNtVERSlTV 

OF 


PUBLISHED    AT    IOWA    CITY    IOWA    IN    1910    BY 
THE     STATE     HISTORICAL     SOCIETY     OF     IOWA 


EXCHANGJ^ 


EDITOR'S  INTRODUCTION 

The  Iowa  Economic  History  Series  as  undertaken  by 
The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa  is  inspired  by  the 
conviction  that  history  is  more  than  politics  and  biogra- 
phy :  as  a  record  of  the  evolution  of  hmnan  institutions  it 
includes  the  social  and  economic  life  of  man.  In  writing 
the  history  of  Commonwealths  it  is  no  longer  possible  to 
ignore  industrial  developments  —  especially  in  this  com- 
mercial age. 

Underlying  the  researches  which  are  to  be  embodied 
in  this  series  of  publications  is  the  idea  that  history  may 
be  exploited  in  the  cause  of  social  betterment.  A  knowl- 
edge of  past  conditions  will  surely  assist  in  explaining 
and  illuminating  the  complex  present,  just  as  an  intelli- 
gent appreciation  of  present  conditions  must  inevitably 
afford  viewpoints  from  which  to  interrogate  the  past  with 
profit.  To  put  history  to  some  practical  use  is  the  supreme 
aim  of  industrial  and  economic  research.  And  in  the  so- 
called  legislative  reference  movement  we  are  even  now 
witnessing  the  birth  of  ''applied  history". 

The  History  of  Labor  Legislation  as  presented  by  Mr. 
Downey  in  the  following  pages  was  written  in  the  winter 
of  1907-1908.  Subsequent  to  that  time  some  modifications 
in  the  laws  affecting  labor  were  made  by  the  Thirty-third 


<>l-l\)i)' 


viii  EDITOK'S  INTRODUCTION 

General  Assembly,  which  met  in  regular  session  in  1909. 
And  so  there  has  been  added  to  this  volume  an  appendix, 
prepared  by  the  author,  in  which  all  such  modifications 
are  clearly  pointed  out. 

Benj.  F.  Shambaugh 

Office  op  the  Superintendent  and  Editor 
The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa 
Iowa  City   1910 


Of   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

Of 


AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 


An  attempt  is  made  in  the  following  pages  to  treat  the  sub- 
ject of  labor  legislation  in  Iowa  historically.  Under  each 
division  of  the  main  subject  the  principal  laws  that  have  been 
enacted  are  set  forth,  with  some  account  of  the  conditions  and 
influences  that  led  to  their  passage  and  some  discussion  of 
their  practical  operation.  For  the  most  part  attention  is 
confined  to  formal  legislation,  but  in  the  case  of  employers' 
liability  a  rather  full  exposition  of  the  Common  Law  ap- 
peared necessary  in  order  to  make  the  meaning  and  effect  of 
the  statutes  intelligible. 

The  materials  for  a  history  of  labor  legislation  in  Iowa 
are  scant  and  unsatisfactory.  Economic  statistics  are  far 
less  complete  in  Iowa  than  in  the  more  advanced  industrial 
States.  Labor  questions  have  rarely  been  a  factor  in  politi- 
cal campaigns,  nor  have  they  received  much  attention  in  the 
newspapers  of  the  day.  Only  within  a  few  years  have  the 
records  of  labor  unions  and  employers '  associations  been  pre- 
served. For  many  of  the  topics  considered  in  the  following 
pages  the  materials  for  an  adequate  treatment  do  not  exist. 

The  writer's  thanks  are  due  first  of  all  to  Professor  Isaac 
A.  Loos  of  The  State  University  of  Iowa,  at  whose  suggestion 
this  work  was  undertaken  and  whose  counsel  has  been  relied 
upon  at  every  stage  of  its  progress.  Professor  Benj.  F.  Sham- 
baugh  of  the  same  University  freely  gave  to  the  writer  the 
benefit  of  his  wide  and  thorough  knowledge  of  Iowa  history, 
and  also  carefully  read  and  revised  the  manuscript.  What- 
ever merit  this  history  may  possess  is  in  large  measure  due  to 


X  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE 

him.  Professor  Henry  W.  Farnam  of  Yale  University  has 
had  general  supervision  of  the  work  on  behalf  of  the  Car- 
negie Institution.  Valuable  hints  as  to  methods  and  arrange- 
ment were  received  from  a  perusal  of  Doctor  Alba  M.  Ed- 
wards's Labor  Legislation  in  Connecticut.  Many  courtesies 
were  extended  to  the  writer  by  officials  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics,  the  State  Mine  Inspectors,  the  Board  of 
Control,  the  Railroad  Commissioners,  and  the  Wardens  of  the 
Iowa  penitentiaries.  Mr.  A.  J.  Small  of  the  State  Law  Li- 
brary was  very  kind  in  placing  the  great  resources  of  that 
collection  at  the  writer's  disposal.  Especial  thanks  are  due 
for  information  furnished  by  the  officers  of  the  Iowa  Feder- 
ation of  Labor  and  of  District  Thirteen  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America.  A  multitude  of  facts  have  been  received 
from  labor  leaders,  employers,  club  women,  and  humanitarian 
workers  in  all  parts  of  the  State.  The  number  of  persons 
rendering  direct  assistance  is  so  large  that  it  is  impossible 
to  mention  them  all  by  name ;  but  without  their  help  the  prep- 
aration of  this  volume  would  have  been  impossible. 

The  undertaking  of  the  present  study  was  rendered  possible 
by  an  appointment  as  Research  Assistant  in  The  State  His- 
torical Society  of  Iowa.  The  expenses  of  the  collection  of 
data  were  borne  by  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington. 

E.  H.  Downey 

The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa 
Iowa  City   1908 


CONTENTS 

I.     Introduction 1 

II.     Wage  Legislation 7 

III.  Convict  Labor  Legislation 18 

IV.  Mine  Labor  Legislation 33 

V.     Eailway  Labor  Legislation 76 

VI.     Factory  Laws 95 

VII.     Child  Labor  Legislation 110 

VIII.     The  Law  of  Employers'  Liability    ....  148 

IX.     Miscellaneous  Labor  Legislation      ....  186 

X.     The  Iowa  Bureau  op  Labor  Statistics      .       .       .  193 

Appendix  —  Recent  Labor  Legislation       .       .  209 

Notes  and  References 217 

Index 275 


Of    THt 

UNIVERSITY 

or 


INTRODUCTION 

Labor  legislation,  as  the  term  will  be  used  in  these  pages, 
embraces  all  statutory  provisions  designed  to  regulate  the 
conditions  of  employment  or  to  protect  wage-earners  from 
exploitation.  The  need  for  such  regulation  and  protection 
grows  out  of  the  capitalistic  system  of  production  which 
creates  a  large  class  divorced  from  ownership  in  the  instru- 
ments of  production,  having  no  share  in  the  direction  of  in- 
dustry and  dependent  upon  wages  for  subsistence.  Labor 
legislation  is,  then,  a  concomitant  of  the  Industrial  Revolu- 
tion and  has  been  enacted  in  one  country  after  another  as 
modem  industrialism  has  extended  itself  over  the  world. 

Capitalistic  industry  is  still  in  an  early  stage  of  develop- 
ment in  Iowa,  and  the  State  is  still  predominantly  agricul- 
tural, the  bulk  of  the  population  consisting  of  independent 
producers  rather  than  of  wage-laborers.  Accordingly,  the 
labor  legislation  of  Iowa  is  smaller  in  amount  and  less  ad- 
vanced in  character  than  that  of  many  of  the  American  Com- 
monwealths. 

Iowa  first  received  a  separate  Territorial  government  in 
1838;  but  prior  thereto  the  region  now  embraced  within  its 
borders  had  been  incorporated  with  the  original  Territory 
of  Wisconsin,  and  still  earlier  with  the  Territory  of  Michigan. 
The  laws  of  the  new  government  were  derived  in  the  first  in- 
stance from  those  of  its  predecessors;  so  that  for  the  begin- 
nings of  Iowa  legislative  history  we  must  look  to  the  Terri- 
tories of  the  Old  Northwest. 

But  of  labor  legislation  there  was  extremely  little  in  the 
Territories  of  which  Iowa  formed  a  part  prior  to  1838.  In 
those  frontier  communities  the  differentiation  of  industry  had 


2  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

hardly  begun.  Almost  the  entire  population  was  agricultural 
and  land-owning.  Towns  were  few  and  small.  Manufac- 
tures, except  those  of  the  household,  did  not  exist.  There 
were  no  railways,  and  no  mining  on  a  large  scale.  The  only 
important  class  of  wage-earners  were  the  members  of  the  var- 
ious hand-trades  found  in  every  community — though  there 
was,  besides,  a  considerable  number  of  persons  who  occa- 
sionally worked  for  wages.  Accordingly,  there  are  early  laws 
regulating  apprenticeship,  providing  for  mechanics '  liens,  and 
exempting  wages  from  attachment.  Prisons,  too — those  in- 
evitable accompaniments  of  civilization — were  found  upon  the 
frontiers;  and  laws  governing  prison  labor  were  among  the 
earliest  enacted  in  the  new  Territories.  But  no  beginning 
was  made  of  the  more  important  classes  of  labor  legislation 
until  long  after  Iowa  had  attained  Statehood. 

The  coming  of  the  railways  in  the  early  fifties  gave  rise 
to  a  new  set  of  labor  problems  with  which  the  legislature  has 
been  called  upon  to  deal  from  time  to  time  ever  since  1851. 
The  coal  mining  industry  attained  importance  about  a  decade 
later,  and  mine  labor  legislation  began  in  1872.  The  develop- 
ment of  manufacturing  on  an  important  scale  came  much  later. 
In  recent  years,  however,  there  has  been  a  great  growth  of 
factory  production  and  a  marked  concentration  of  population 
in  towns  and  cities.  A  large  wage-earning  class  has  come 
into  existence  and  is  becoming  conscious  of  its  political  power. 
The  special  problems  of  factory,  child,  and  woman  labor  have 
begun  to  press  for  solution.  Labor  questions  have  increas- 
ingly occupied  the  attention  of  the  Greneral  Assembly,  and  the 
volume  of  labor  legislation  has  grown  apace. 

Laws  are  not,  in  general,  the  spontaneous  work  of  legis- 
latures. This  is  particularly  true  of  labor  laws  in  a  com- 
munity such  as  Iowa.  A  majority  of  our  legislators  come 
from  rural  districts  or  country  towns,  and,  however  sincerely 
devoted  to  the  public  weal,  are  necessarily  uninformed  as  to 
the  needs  and  demands  of  wage-earners.  Most  members  of 
the  legislature  serve  but  for  short  terms,  so  that  they  have 


INTRODUCTION  3 

little  opportunity  to  familiarize  themselves  with  legislative 
questions.  The  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly  are  brief, 
and  the  number  of  bills  presented  is  so  large  that  only  those 
which  are  persistently  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  mem- 
bers have  any  chance  of  passage.  Moreover,  much  of  the 
legislation  demanded  by  working  men  is  opposed  by  powerful 
railway  and  mining  corporations,  wealthy  manufacturers,  and 
influential  men  of  business.  The  natural  conservatism  of  farm- 
ers and  the  fear  of  frightening  capital  and  enterprise  away 
from  the  State  make  the  legislature  reluctant  to  adopt  any 
measure  distasteful  to  these  interests.  Hence,  it  is  only  by 
the  pressure  of  public  opinion  or  by  the  political  power  of 
the  class  most  concerned  that  legislation  in  the  interest  of 
labor  has  been  or  can  be  secured. 

There  appears  to  have  been  very  little  concerted  effort  in 
support  of  labor  legislation  prior  to  1876,  when  the  Knights 
of  Labor  organized  in  Iowa.  By  the  middle  of  the  following 
decade  this  organization  had  a  membership  of  twenty-five 
thousand  and  was  a  power  in  the  politics  of  the  State.  There- 
after the  Knights  of  Labor  gradually  declined  in  numbers,  and 
finally  disappeared  (except  for  a  few  local  bodies)  early  in 
the  nineties.  During  the  period  of  their  strength  the  Knights 
were  very  influential  in  securing  legislation  on  behalf  of  labor. 
The  establishment  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  in 
1884,  the  important  mine  legislation  of  1880,  1884,  and  1888, 
and  the  prohibition  of  black-listing  in  1888  were  principally 
due  to  their  exertions.^ 

The  Knights  were  replaced  by  the  Iowa  Branch  of  the 
American  Federation  of  Labor,  formed  in  1893.  Though 
checked  for  a  time  by  the  prolonged  industrial  depression 
following  that  year,  this  Federation  has  enjoyed  a  healthy 
growth  since  1898  and  now  (1908)  has  more  than  forty  thou- 
sand members.  The  Federation  maintains  a  very  efficient 
''legislative  committee,"  which  not  only  brings  the  demands 
of  organized  labor  to  the  notice  of  the  General  Assembly,  but 
keeps  the  record  of  each  member  of  the  legislature  upon  every 


4  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

question  affecting  the  interests  of  labor.  All  of  the  very  nu- 
merous labor  laws  enacted  since  1893  have  been  secured  very 
largely  through  its  influence.^ 

The  most  important  of  these  laws  are:  the  amendment  of 
the  mechanics '  lien  law  in  1894 ;  the  acts  of  1896  and  1898  for 
the  inspection  of  illuminants  used  in  coal  mines;  the  act  of 
1900  for  the  certification  of  mine  foremen  and  hoisting  en- 
gineers ;  the  factory  act  of  1902 ;  the  laws  passed  in  the  same 
year  restricting  contract  labor  in  the  State  prisons  and  pro- 
viding for  shot  examiners  in  coal  mines ;  the  compulsory  edu- 
cation laws  of  1902  and  1904 ;  the  child  labor  law  of  1906 ;  the 
assumption  of  risk  act  of  1907 ;  and  the  laws  of  1907  limiting 
the  hours  of  labor  for  certain  railway  employees,  regulating 
the  height  of  wires  strung  above  railway  tracks,  forbidding 
the  storage  of  powder  in  coal  mines,  and  providing  for  the 
licensing  and  inspection  of  private  employment  agencies. 
Moreover,  the  Federation  has  succeeded  in  defeating  a  num- 
ber of  proposed  measures — notably  boycott,  anti-picket,  and 
wage-garnishment  bills — adverse  to  the  interests  of  labor. 

With  the  Federation  of  Labor  have  cooperated,  wherever 
their  own  interests  were  affected,  the  great  railway  brother- 
hoods and  the  several  trades  unions  within  the  Federation 
itself.  The  most  important  of  these  is  the  powerful  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America,  organized  in  Iowa  in  1898  and  now 
numbering  some  seventeen  thousand  members  in  this  State. 

Thus,  from  1876  to  the  present  day  labor  organizations 
have  been  the  main  factor  in  securing  legislation  in  Iowa  in 
the  interest  of  wage-earners.  Since  nearly  all  of  the  impor- 
tant labor  laws  of  this  State  have  been  enacted  within  the 
past  thirty  years  it  follows  that  the  existing  legislation  upon 
this  subject  is  directly  traceable  to  the  influence  of  organized 
labor.  Without  that  influence  few  of  the  labor  laws  would 
have  been  passed  when  and  as  they  were ;  while  many  of  them, 
probably,  would  not  have  been  passed  at  all. 

The  interests  opposed  to  labor  legislation  have  not  lacked 
organization  or  capable  leadership.    The  leading  railways  of 


INTRODUCTION  5 

the  State  have  repeatedly  used  their  great  influence  against 
proposed  legislation  demanded  by  wage-earners.^  The  Iowa 
Coal  Operators'  Association,  the  State  Manufacturers'  Asso- 
ciation, the  Ketail  Merchants'  Association,  and  various  Citi- 
zens' and  Industrial  Alliances,  either  maintain  regular  legis- 
lative committees  or  send  special  representatives  to  Des 
Moines  to  urge  the  passage  of  their  own  bills  and  to  oppose 
those  supported  by  organized  labor.  Many  of  the  measures 
proposed  by  labor  organizations  have  been  defeated  by  such 
opposition;  and  many  of  the  labor  laws  actually  passed  rep- 
resent compromises  between  the  opposing  interests. 

Iowa  has  had  the  very  great  advantage  of  the  previous 
experience  of  more  advanced  industrial  communities  in  deal- 
ing with  labor  problems.  Most  of  the  legislative  questions 
which  have  arisen  in  this  State  had  come  up  long  before  in 
other  States  and  had  been  more  or  less  intelligently  handled. 
The  legislature  of  Iowa  has  thus  been  able  to  avoid  some 
costly  mistakes  and  to  adopt  laws  at  the  outset  which  had 
been  perfected  through  the  tedious  process  of  evolution  else- 
where. But  the  cases  are  far  more  numerous  in  which  the 
General  Assembly  of  Iowa  has  failed  to  profit  by  the  experi- 
mentation of  other  States.  Time  and  again  laws  which  had 
been  thoroughly  tested  elsewhere  and  had  proven  success- 
ful have  been  rejected,  and  measures  enacted  in  their  stead 
which  experience  had  shown  to  be  inadequate.  The  result  has 
been  the  frequent  amendment,  repeal,  and  reenactment  of 
statutes  which  might  just  as  well  have  been  made  efficient 
from  the  beginning. 

Much  of  this  failure  to  make  intelligent  use  of  the  rich 
social  and  political  experience  of  other  communities  is  due 
to  sheer  lack  of  information.  Men  who  give  but  a  few  months 
of  their  time  once  in  two  years  to  the  work  of  law-making 
can  hardly  be  expected  to  know  at  first  hand  what  is  being 
done  outside  of  their  own  State.  A  bureau  of  information  or 
research,  similar  to  the  Wisconsin  Legislative  Reference  De- 
partment., which  should  utilize  the  scholarship  of  the  State 


6  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

to  collate  the  legislation  and  digest  the  experience  of  other 
States  and  countries,  would  probably  do  as  much  as  any 
agency  whatever  to  promote  the  cause  of  wise  social  legis- 
lation. 

The  labor  legislation  of  Iowa,  on  the  whole,  fairly  repre- 
sents the  industrial  development  of  the  State  and  the  political 
intelligence  of  the  people.  A  study  of  that  legislation  ought, 
therefore,  to  throw  some  light  upon  many  phases  of  Iowa 
industrial  historv. 


II 

WAGE  LEGISLATION 

Wage  laws  aim  to  secure  the  prompt  and  full  payment  of 
the  laborer's  wages  and  to  protect  him  against  oppression  by 
unscrupulous  creditors.  The  working  man  ordinarily  lives 
from  hand  to  mouth,  owning  little  or  no  property  and  depend- 
ent upon  his  daily  earnings  for  subsistence.  To  the  merchant 
the  non-payment  of  an  account  means  only  a  reduction  of  his 
profits  for  the  week  or  month.  To  the  day-laborer  the  loss 
of  even  a  week's  wages  entails  privation,  if  not  distress.  It 
has  been  thought  just,  therefore,  that  the  payment  of  wages 
should  be  secured  by  stronger  legal  guarantees  than  ordinary 
debts.  Further,  the  wage-earner  is  usually  weaker  economic- 
ally than  either  his  debtors  or  his  creditors.  He  is  peculiarly 
susceptible  to  the  temptations  of  the  credit  system — which 
possesses  for  him  greater  evils  than  for  any  other  class.  The 
interference  of  the  law  is  generally  thought  necessary  to  aid 
him  in  maintaining  a  cash  system,  and  to  shield  him  from 
the  extortion  of  the  money-lender. 

mechanics'  liens 

The  legislation  upon  the  subject  of  mechanics'  liens  began 
when  Iowa  was  a  part  of  Michigan  Territory.  The  Legisla- 
tive Council  of  that  Territory  established  a  mechanics'  and 
merchants'  lien  for  the  city  of  Detroit  and  county  of  Brown 
in  1827.*  Two  years  later  the  provisions  of  this  act  were  ex- 
tended to  the  other  counties  of  the  Territory;^  and  later  still 
(1833)  the  earlier  laws  were  replaced  by  a  more  elaborate 
statute,''  the  provisions  of  which  were  extended  over  the  Ter- 
ritory of  Wisconsin  in  1836  "^  and  over  the  Territory  of  Iowa 
in  1838.^    These  Michigan  laws  served  only  as  a  point  of  de- 


8  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

parture ;  for  the  settlement  of  Iowa  had  scarcely  begnn  before 
they  were  superseded. 

The  first  labor  law  enacted  by  the  Legislative  Assembly 
of  the  Territory  of  Iowa  was  **An  Act  relative  to  Mechanics' 
Liens",  which  was  approved  December  17,  1838.^  It  secured 
payment  for  labor  performed  or  material  furnished  under 
contract  with  the  owner  of  real  estate  for  the  construction  or 
repair  thereon  of  any  house  or  other  building,  mill,  or  ma- 
chinery, by  a  lien  upon  the  building  with  its  appurtenances 
and  upon  the  lot  or  tract  of  land  upon  which  the  same  was 
erected.  Section  five  gave  persons  employed  on  mineral  lands 
a  similar  lien  upon  the  ground  on  which  they  were  employed. 
The  judicial  process  for  enforcing  the  lien  was  amended  in 
1840;^^  and  in  1843  the  earlier  laws  were  combined,  with  a 
few  changes,  in  one  statute. ^^ 

Important  changes  in  the  law  of  mechanics'  liens  were 
made  in  the  Code  of  1851}'^  Every  person  who  by  virtue  of 
a  contract  with  the  owner  of  a  piece  of  land  should  perform 
work  or  furnish  material  especially  for  any  building  was  given 
a  lien  upon  the  land,  including  the  building  and  its  appurte- 
nances, ''against  all  persons  except  incumbrancers  by  judg- 
ment rendered,  and  by  instrument  recorded  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  work  or  the  furnishing  of  the  material.  "^^ 
The  word  "owner"  was  defined  as  "any  person  who  has  any 
estate  or  interest  in  the  land",  and  the  lien  extended  to  the 
whole  of  such  estate  and  interest  and  no  further.^'*  The 
realty  subject  to  lien  was  limited  to  one-half  acre  in  the  case 
of  town  lots  and  to  two  acres  in  any  case.^^  The  sub-con- 
tractor, not  mentioned  in  the  laws  of  1838  or  1843,  now  ob- 
tained a  lien  against  his  principal,  enforceable  by  garnish- 
ment of  the  latter 's  claims  in  the  hands  of  the  owner  of  the 
real-estate  improved.^^  All  rights  to  a  mechanics'  lien  were 
forfeited  by  taking  collateral  security  on  the  same  contract.^"^ 
The  miners'  lien  of  the  former  laws  was  omitted,  but  a  new 
lien  was  created  for  the  benefit  of  "persons  furnishing  labor 


WAGE  LEGISLATION  9 

or  materials  for  the  construction  of  any  bridge,  railroad  or 
other  work  of  internal  improvement."^^ 

Acts  relating  to  the  filing  of  claims  for  mechanics'  liens 
were  passed  in  1857^^  and  in  1858  ;2^  the  last  mentioned  law 
further  provided  that  any  person  furnishing  materials  to  the 
contractor  should  have  the  same  lien  as  the  contractor  himself. 

Thus  far  the  mechanics'  lien  had  benefited  chiefly  the 
contractor  and  the  material-man.  In  1860  its  benefits  were 
extended  to  all  persons  who  should  perform  any  work  or 
furnish  any  material  for  any  building,  erection,  or  improve- 
ment upon  land  by  virtue  of  any  contract  with  the  owner 
thereof,  his  agent,  trustee,  contractor,  or  sub-contractor.^^ 
But  sub-contractors,  including  all  who  did  not  have  contracts 
directly  with  the  owner,  his  agent  or  trustee,^^  were  required 
in  order  to  avail  themselves  of  the  lien,  to  notify  the  owner 
of  their  intention  to  perform  labor  or  furnish  material.^^ 
Failure  to  do  so  did  not,  however,  forfeit  the  lien,  provided 
a  statement  of  the  claim  was  filed  before  the  payment  of  the 
contractor.^*  The  acreage  limitation  of  1851  was  removed, 
and  it  was  provided  that  when  the  owner  of  the  improvement 
has  only  a  lease-hold  interest  in  the  land  improved,  the  lien 
should  attach  to  the  improvement  notwithstanding  the  sub- 
sequent forfeiture  of  the  lease.^^  By  the  same  act  the  lien 
was  made  transferable,  and  when  for  labor  alone  it  was  ex- 
empted from  execution.^^ 

Acts  relating  to  the  filing  of  claims,  the  service  of  notice, 
and  the  mode  and  time  of  commencing  action  were  passed  in 
1862,  1870,  1872,  and  1874.2"^  There  was  also  passed  in  1874 
an  act  to  further  secure  the  rights  of  sub-contractors'  em- 
ployees.^*^ In  1876  all  prior  laws  relating  the  mechanics'  liens 
were  repealed  and  a  new  statute  enacted, ^^  since  which  date 
there  have  been  several  additions  but  no  very  important  al- 
terations. In  1884  it  was  enacted  that  a  sub-contractor  en- 
gaged upon  a  public  improvement  not  belonging  to  the  State 
shall  have  a  claim  against  the  public  corporation  constructing 
such  improvement.^^    No  lien  can  attach  to  any  public  prop- 


10  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

erty,^^  but  payment  of  the  principal  contractor  may  he  stayed 
imtil  the  sub-contractors'  claims  are  satisfied. ^^  The  miners' 
lien,  omitted  in  the  Code  of  1851,  was  revived  in  1890.^^ 
Lastly,  in  1894,  it  was  provided  that  persons  "engaged  in 
grading  any  land  or  lot"  shall  have  a  lien  "upon  the  land 
or  lot  so  graded."^* 

The  mechanics'  lien  is  purely  statutory  and  is  limited  by 
the  acts  of  the  legislature  creating  it.^^  The  lien  is  allowed 
only  for  buildings,  erections,  or  other  improvements  upon 
land;^^  the  improvement  must  be  such  as  to  become  a  part 
of  the  land  by  way  of  addition  thereto. ^'^  Thus  it  has  been 
held  that  the  plowing  of  land,^^  the  filling  in  of  a  vacant  lot,^* 
or  the  construction  of  a  sidewalk  on  the  street  in  front  of  a 
lot*°  are  not  improvements  within  the  meaning  of  the  law. 
On  the  other  hand,  excavations  for  buildings  and  permanent 
wells  are  within  the  statute.'*^ 

A  mechanics'  lien  can  be  claimed  only  for  materials  fur- 
nished or  labor  performed  by  virtue  of  a  contract.  But  the 
contract  need  not  be  in  writing,  nor  even  express;  nor  is  it 
necessary  that  it  be  proved  by  direct  and  positive  testimony.*^ 
Neither  is  it  necessary  that  there  should  be  a  contract  to 
furnish  any  specific  amount  of  labor  or  material,*^  nor  that 
all  of  the  materials  furnished  should  be  actually  used.**  Again, 
it  is  not  essential  that  the  agreement  should  be  made  with 
the  owner  of  the  real-estate  improved;  it  may  be  made  with 
his  agent  or  trustee,  or  with  one  who  is  a  contractor  or  sub- 
contractor, though  he  have  no  interest  in  the  land,  or  build- 
ing or  other  improvement.*^ 

The  right  to  a  mechanics'  lien  may  be  asserted  by  cor- 
porations as  well  as  by  natural  persons,*^  by  non-residents,*'' 
by  minors  or  married  women,*^  by  day-laborers,*^  by  all  in 
short  who  bring  themselves  within  the  provisions  of  the 
statute. 

In  order  to  avail  himself  of  the  benefit  of  the  lien  the 
principal  contractor  must  file  his  claim  with  the  clerk  of  the 
District   Court  within  ninety  days,  and  the   sub-contractor 


WAGE  LEGISLATION  11 

within  thirty  days,  after  the  materials  were  furnished  or  the 
services  rendered;  but  failure  to  do  so  will  not  defeat  the  lien, 
except  against  purchasers  or  incumbrancers  in  good  faith, 
without  notice,  whose  rights  accrued  after  the  expiration  of 
the  time  allowed  for  filing  claims.  Where  a  lien  is  claimed 
upon  a  railway,  the  sub-contractor  has  sixty  days  from  the 
last  of  the  month  within  which  the  labor  was  done  or  material 
furnished  within  which  to  file  his  claim  therefor.^^ 

Mechanics'  liens  have  priority  of  all  garnishments  of  the 
owner  for  contract  debts,  without  regard  to  the  date  of  filing 
the  claims  for  such  liens;  they  are  preferred  to  all  other 
liens  or  incumbrances  upon  the  improvements  and  the  land 
on  which  they  are  situated,  made  subsequently  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  furnishing  of  the  material  or  performance 
of  the  labor;  and  finally,  they  attach  to  the  buildings,  erec- 
tions, or  improvements  concerned  in  preference  to  any  prior 
lien,  incumbrance,  or  mortgage  upon  the  land.  As  between 
different  persons  claiming  mechanics'  liens  upon  the  same 
property,  priority  is  recognized  according  to  the  order  of  the 
filing  of  the  statements  and  accounts  therefor.^^ 

An  action  to  enforce  a  mechanics'  lien  may  be  brought 
at  any  time  within  two  years  from  the  expiration  of  the  legal 
period  for  filing  claims  and  cannot  be  brought  afterwards.^^ 

Builders  and  material  men  belong  to  a  class  of  creditors 
whose  rights  accrue  from  time  to  time  and  who  cannot  well 
avail  themselves  of  the  ordinary  remedies  for  the  collection 
of  their  claims.  The  preference  given  them  rests  upon  equit- 
able grounds. 

PBEFEEENCE  OF  EMPLOYEES*  CLAIMS 

Akin  to  mechanics'  liens  is  the  preference  given  to  claims 
for  wages  in  the  settlement  of  the  estates  of  insolvent  debtors. 
Employees  are  generally  the  last  to  protect  themselves  against 
the  insolvency  of  their  employers,  so  that,  where  no  statutory 
preference  exists,  the  assets  of  the  bankrupt  firm  are  often 
exhausted  by  secured  creditors,  leaving  the  employees'  claims 


12  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

unpaid.  Moreover,  the  claims  of  the  latter,  while  individually 
small,  are  very  important  to  them;  and  they,  if  any,  are  en- 
titled to  preference,  for  they  have  usually  helped  to  create 
the  assets  from  which  the  debts  are  to  be  paid.^^ 

For  these  reasons  an  act  was  passed  in  1890  which  pro- 
vides that  when  the  property  of  any  company,  corporation, 
firm,  or  person,  is  seized  or  assigned  for  debt,  wages  due  em- 
ployees for  labor  performed  within  the  ninety  days  next  pre- 
ceding the  seizure  or  assignment,  to  an  amount  not  exceeding 
one  hundred  dollars  to  each  employee,  shall  be  preferred 
claims. ^^  This  statute  gives  priority  to  such  claims  over  other 
liens,  including  mortgages,  existing  and  of  record  at  the  time 
of  the  seizure  or  assignment.^^ 

TIME    AND    MODE    OF    PAYMENT 

Hardly  less  im23ortant  to  the  laborer  than  the  ultimate 
security  of  his  wages  are  the  manner  and  frequency  of  his 
payment.  The  most  common  abuses  in  these  particulars  are 
the  truck  system  and  the  monthly  settlement  plan — evils  which 
will  be  most  conveniently  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
mining  and  railway  industries  to  which  they  are  chiefly  con- 
fined. 

EXEMPTION   OF   WAGES   FROM   ATTACHMENT 

Ever  since  1851  a  debtor  who  is  a  resident  of  the  State  and 
the  head  of  a  family  has  held  the  earnings  of  his  personal 
services  and  those  of  his  family  at  any  time  within  ninety 
days  next  preceding  the  levy  exempt  from  liability  for  debt.^^ 
A  non-resident  of  the  State,  or  an  unmarried  person,  not  the 
head  of  a  family,  has  no  exemption,  except  wearing  apparel 
and  trunks  necessary  to  contain  the  same.^"^  A  bill  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Thirtieth  General  Assembly  (1904)  to  remedy  the 
injustice  to  non-residents  by  granting  them  the  same  exemp- 
tions as  to  personal  earnings  as  are  allowed  in  their  respective 
States.^^  This  bill  was  lost  in  committee,^^  and  no  similar 
measure  has  ever  become  law.  But  in  the  same  year  (1904) 
the  wages  of  a  non-resident,  earned  and  payable  outside  the 


WAGE  LEGISLATION  13 


State,  were  exempted  from  garnishment  by  a  non-resident 
creditor  upon  a  cause  of  action  arising  outside  of  this  State. ^^ 
An  act  passed  in  1890  provides  a  penalty  of  not  less  than  ten 
nor  more  than  fifty  dollars  for  sending  a  claim  outside  this 
State  to  defeat  an  exemption  allowed  by  law.^^ 

For  some  years  past  persistent  efforts  have  been  made  by 
the  Retail  Merchants'  Association  and  its  predecessor,  the 
Association  of  Retail  Grocers,  to  secure  a  modification  of  the 
exemption  laws,  permitting  the  attachment  of  wages  for  the 
family  expenses  of  a  debtor.  The  bills  looking  to  this  end 
have  been  numerous,  but  it  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose 
to  sketch  the  provisions  and  legislative  history  of  a  few  of 
the  best  known  measures.  At  the  legislative  session  of  1904, 
Mr.  Robert  A.  Greene  of  East  Peru,  a  prominent  member  of 
the  Retail  Grocers'  Association,  and  at  present  (1907)  chair- 
man of  the  Retail  Merchants'  Legislative  Committee,  intro- 
duced a  bill  restricting  the  exemption  of  the  debtor's  personal 
earnings,  as  against  debts  for  family  expenses,  to  seventy-five 
per  cent  of  the  amount  earned  within  ninety  days  immediately 
preceding  the  levy.^^  This  bill  was  favorably  reported  by  a 
majority  of  the  Committee  on  Waj^s  and  Means ;  but  there  was 
a  minority  report  against  it,  and  it  was  eventually  lost  by  in- 
definite postponement.^^  Mr.  E.  W.  Weeks  of  Guthrie  Center 
then  introduced  a  bill  substituting  forty  dollars  per  month  for 
the  seventy-five  per  cent  of  Greene's  bill.^*  This  measure, 
after  amendment,  passed  the  House,  but  was  adversely  re- 
ported in  the  Senate  and  finally  died  in  the  Sifting  Commit- 
tee.*^^ The  defeat  of  both  bills  was  largely  due  to  the  exertions 
of  the  Legislative  Committee  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor 
under  the  leadership  of  President  A.  L,  Urick. 

An  effort  was  now  made  by  the  two  organizations  most 
interested  to  agree  upon  a  program  of  legislation.  Simul- 
taneous conventions  were  held  at  Council  Bluffs  in  May,  1905, 
where  the  Retail  Grocers  merged  themselves  into  the  Retail 
Merchants'  Association,  and  where  resolutions  were  passed 
by  both  conventions  demanding  the  repeal  of  all  existing  ex- 


14  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

emptions  laws.®*^  Charges  of  bad  faith  were  afterward  made 
on  both  sides.  On  the  one  hand  it  was  alleged  that  the  Feder- 
ation was  insincere,  demanding  the  repeal  of  all  exemption 
laws  in  order  to  prevent  the  repeal  of  any.  On  the  other  hand 
it  was  asserted  that  the  Retail  Merchants'  bill  in  the  next 
legislative  session  was  a  direct  violation  of  the  agreement. ^'^ 
This  bill,  fathered  by  Mr.  Greene,  limited  homestead  exemp- 
tions to  the  value  of  five  thousand  dollars,  and  the  exemption 
of  wages  to  forty  dollars  per  month  for  the  ninety  days  next 
preceding  the  levy.^^  The  legislative  history  of  this  bill  was 
much  like  that  of  its  immediate  predecessor.  It  passed  the 
House  by  fifty-two  to  thirty-seven,  was  unfavorably  reported 
by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  and  was  left 
to  expire  in  the  hands  of  the  Sifting  Committee.^^  Wage- 
exemption  bills  were  introduced  at  the  last  session  of  the  legis- 
lature (1907)  by  Representatives  Blackmore,  Greenwood,  and 
Weeks,  and  by  Senator  James  J.  Crossley  of  Winterset."^^ 
Strong  opposition  developing,  the  House  bills  were  withdrawn 
by  their  respective  authors  ;'^^  and  Senator  Crossley 's  bill  was 
indefinitely  postponed.*^^ 

It  is  probable  that  the  Retail  Merchants'  Association  will 
renew  its  efforts  at  future  meetings  of  the  legislature.  The 
merchants  and  their  friends  contend  that  the  present  law  per- 
mits the  dishonest  laborer  to  escape  the  payment  of  his  just 
debts.  If  his  wages  were  liable  to  attachment  he  would  not, 
as  now,  recklessly  contract  indebtedness  without  either  the 
means  or  the  intention  of  paying.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
friends  of  the  law  assert  that  a  wage  exemption  law  helps 
the  laborer  to  maintain  a  cash  system  by  making  it  difficult 
to  get  undue  credit.  Were  the  merchant  sure  of  his  payment, 
the  wage-earner  would  be  encouraged  to  run  into  debt,  his 
pay-check  would  barely  suffice  to  meet  his  accounts,  and  he 
would  speedily  sink  to  a  condition  of  dependence.  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  this  contention  is  sound  in  the  main.  Pur- 
chasers ''on  time"  are  invariably  worsted  in  quantity  and 
price,  and  it  is  well  known  that  such  purchasers  are  less  pru- 


WAGE  LEGISLATION  15 

dent  than  those  who  pay  cash.  The  number  of  bad  debts  is 
diminished  rather  than  increased  by  a  reasonable  wage  exemp- 
tion. An  efficient  system  of  credit  agencies  is  probably  a  bet- 
ter protection  against  "dead  beats"  than  a  garnishment  law. 
There  is,  moreover,  a  broader  phase  of  the  question.  It 
has  long  been  regarded  as  sound  public  policy  to  permit  every 
family  to  hold  a  homestead  and  the  means  of  livelihood  secure 
against  economic  misfortune.  But  the  day-laborer  commonly 
does  not  possess  a  homestead.  Often  he  owns  no  tools;  and 
he  very  rarely  has  any  store  of  provisions  on  hand.  All  his 
property  consists  of  a  little  household  furniture  and  wearing 
apparel.  His  wages  are  his  only  income,  and  if  these  could 
be  attached  for  past  indebtedness,  he  would  not  infrequently 
be  thrown  upon  society  for  support.  Even  as  it  is,  he  enjoys 
far  less  protection  from  insolvency  laws  than  the  farmer,  the 
merchant,  or  the  professional  man.  It  should,  however,  be 
added  that  it  is  thought  by  many  that  the  general  exemption 
laws  of  Iowa  are  too  liberal. 

ASSIGNMENT  OF   WAGES 

The  exemption  of  wages  from  attachment  is  not  sufficient 
to  destroy  the  credit  system,  since  the  laborer  may  still  obtain 
goods  by  assigning  his  wages  to  his  creditor.  Still  more  fre- 
quently are  such  assignments  made  for  the  purpose  of  bor- 
rowing money  in  anticipation  of  future  wages.  Unscrupulous 
money  lenders,  commonly  known  as  "loan  sharks"  who  prey 
upon  the  necessities  and  improvidence  of  the  wage-earners 
are  found  in  all  of  the  larger  centers  of  industry  in  Iowa.  A 
bill  introduced  by  Representative  Wright  of  Ft.  Dodge  in 
1906,  aimed  at  checking  their  operations  by  making  the  assign- 
ment of  future  wages  invalid.  '^^ 

The  Judiciary  Committee,  to  whom  this  bill  was  referred, 
brought  in  a  substitute  "'"*  which  with  slight  amendment  and 
almost  without  opposition  "^^  became  law.  The  measure  as 
passed  provides  that  no  sale  or  assignment  of  wages  by  the 
head  of  a  family  "shall  be  of  any  validity  whatever  unless 


16  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

the  same  be  evidenced  by  a  written  instrument  and  if  married 
unless  the  husband  and  wife  sign  and  acknowledge  the  same 
joint  instrument  before  an  officer  authorized  to  take  acknowl- 
edgments". Valid  assignments  have  priority  in  the  order  in 
which  written  notice  is  given  to  the  employerJ^ 

Wage  assignment  is  not  the  sole  or  even  the  principal 
device  of  the  loan  sharks.  Advertisements  like  the  following 
appear  in  the  evening  papers,  on  bill  boards,  and  in  street 
cars: 

WE  LOAN 
MONEY 


On  Furniture,  Pianos,  Fixtures, 
Horses  and  Vehicles. 

$1.20  IS  THE  Weekly  Payment  on 
A  $50  Loan. 

Every  Transaction  Strictly  Con- 
fidential.   Reliable — Private. 
TEI-CITY  LOAN  CO. 
Old  Phone  No.  2425.     2191/2  Brady  St. 

Davenport,  Iowa. 
Open  Wednesday  and  Saturday  Nights. 

The  ' '  confidential ' '  nature  of  the  transaction  and  the  easy 
payment  plan  are  especially  attractive  to  the  classes  to  which 
these  appeals  are  addressed.  It  is  like  buying  goods  on  in- 
stallment— ^many  purchases  are  made  which  the  family  purse 
can  ill  afford.  For  it  is  to  be  noted  that  these  loans  are  not 
advancements  of  capital,  as  in  the  case  of  the  push-cart  men 
of  New  York  or  the  coster-mongers  of  London.  Money  is 
borrowed  rather  for  the  purchase  of  luxuries  and  comforts,  or 
as  the  result  of  sickness  or  other  misfortune,  and  the  house- 
hold furniture  is  pledged  in  the  hope  that  it  will  speedily  be 
redeemed. 

The  rate  of  interest  on  these  loans,  including  ''commis- 
sions and  charges,"  is  inversely  proportional  to  the  amount 
loaned.    Upon  small  sums  for  short  terms  it  may  reach  several 


WAGE  LEGISLATION  17 

hundred  per  cent.  The  total  is  seldom  less  than  ten  per  cent 
a  month,  that  portion  of  the  charges  in  excess  of  legal  interest 
being  deducted  in  advance  from  the  face  of  the  loan.  Thus 
a  note  dravm  for  five  dollars,  payable  in  one  month,  actually 
yields  to  the  borrower  but  four.  The  security  exacted  in  the 
form  of  a  wage  assignment  or  a  chattel  mortgage  is  more 
than  ample,  and  the  harsh  manner  of  enforcement  is  the  most 
repugnant  feature  of  the  ''personal  loan  industry ".'^'^ 

The  loan  sharks  find  their  patrons  chiefly  among  the  least 
provident  and  least  informed  members  of  the  community. 
Such  people,  because  of  their  very  ignorance  and  improvi- 
dence, are  rarely  members  of  a  labor  union  or  other  fraternal 
organization.  Often  their  credit  is  not  good  at  the  store;  and 
so  their  only  recourse  is  the  professional  money  lender. 

It  is  difficult  to  frame  any  law  which  will  correct  the  abuses 
growing  out  of  money  lending  without  at  the  same  time  inter- 
fering with  legitimate  business.  Perhaps  the  best  remedy 
for  the  loan  shark  evil,  as  for  so  many  others,  is  wisely  directed 
private  benevolence.  Such  organizations  as  the  Tri-City  Jews' 
Associated  Charities  of  Davenport,  Rock  Island,  and  Moline, 
or  the  more  inclusive  and  widely  known  Provident  Loan 
Association  of  New  York,  which  make  loans  in  deserving  cases 
at  low  interest  rates,  can  perhaps  do  more  than  any  statutory 
regulation  to  put  an  end  to  the  sharp  practices  of  private  loan 
agencies. 

WAGES  OF   MINORS  AND  MARRIED  WOMEN. 

As  far  back  as  1851  it  was  enacted  that  where  a  contract 
for  the  personal  services  of  a  minor  has  been  made  with  him 
alone,  payment  to  the  minor  in  accordance  with  the  contract 
is  a  full  satisfaction  for  the  services.  This  law  has  never 
been  altered.'''^ 

Since  1873  a  wife  has  been  permitted  to  receive  the  wages 
of  her  personal  labor,  and  maintain  an  action  therefor  in  her 
own  name,  and  hold  the  same  in  her  own  right.'^ 

Similar  laws  exist  in  many  States.  They  tend  to  lessen 
the  economic  dependence  of  the  classes  to  which  they  apply. 


Ill 

CONVICT   LABOR  LEGISLATION 

The  history  of  the  prison  legislation  of  Iowa  begins  with 
"An  Act  for  providing  and  regulating  Prisons",  adopted  by 
the  Grovernor  and  Judges  of  Michigan  Territory  in  1819.  This 
act  required  the  sheriff  of  each  county  to  furnish  any  convict 
sentenced  to  hard  labor  with  tools  and  materials  to  work  with 
in  the  jail  or  jail-yard,  and  to  sell  the  articles  manufactured 
or  other  produce  of  convict  labor.  If  at  the  expiration  of  the 
sentence  it  should  appear  that  the  proceeds  of  the  labor  of 
any  convict  had  been  more  than  sufficient  to  pay  for  his  or 
her  maintenance  at  the  jail,  and  for  the  fine,  if  any,  imposed 
by  the  court,  and  for  the  cost  of  tools  and  materials  used,  then 
the  residue  was  to  be  paid  to  the  released  convict.^*^ 

The  law  of  1819  was  adopted  with  slight  change  by  the 
Legislative  Council  of  the  Territory  of  Michigan  in  1827  ^^ 
and,  not  having  been  repealed,  was  still  in  force  when  Iowa 
became  a  separate  Territory  in  1838. 

The  system  of  confining  persons  convicted  of  grave  crimes 
in  common  jails  with  petty  offenders  is  wrong  in  theory  and 
bad  in  practice.  Accordingly,  the  first  Legislative  Assembly 
of  the  Territory  of  Iowa  passed  an  act  providing  for  the  erec- 
tion of  a  penitentiary. 

This  prison  was  to  be  located  at  Fort  Madison,  and  was  to 
be  of  sufficient  capacity  "to  receive,  secure,  and  employ  one 
hundred  and  thirty-six  convicts,  to  be  confined  in  separate 
cells  at  night",  and  was  to  be  modelled  upon  the  Connecticut 
State  Prison  at  Wethersfield.  Convicts  at  the  penitentiary 
were  to  be  employed  in  the  construction  of  the  prison;  but 
after  its  completion  they  were  to  manufacture  articles  for  the 
market  under  the  direction  of  the  Warden.^^ 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  19 

In  1841  the  warden  was  empowered  to  hire  out  the  convicts 
for  work  in  the  town  of  Fort  Madison,  his  authority  under  the 
earlier  law  to  manufacture  and  sell  goods  remaining  unim- 
paired.^^ In  accordance  with  the  discretion  allowed  him  by 
these  laws,  the  warden  employed  the  prisoners,  sometimes  in 
blacksmithing,  cooperage,  and  shoe  making,  and  sometimes  in 
wood  cutting,  digging  cellars,  and  other  odd  jobs.^* 

The  theory  then  generally  accepted  was  that  a  prison 
should  pay  its  own  way — an  ideal  which  the  small  number  of 
prisoners  at  the  Iowa  penitentiary  made  difficult  of  realiza- 
tion. Disappointed,  apparently,  by  the  financial  results  of  the 
earlier  system  of  management,  the  legislature  in  1846  formally 
leased  the  penitentiary  for  a  term  of  three  years.  The  lessee 
undertook  to  clothe,  feed,  and  attend  the  convicts;  to  employ 
overseers,  guards,  and  physicians ;  and  to  defray  all  contingent 
expenses  of  the  penitentiary  out  of  his  own  pocket,  receiving 
in  return  full  management  and  control  of  the  penitentiary  with 
all  profits  arising  from  the  labor  of  the  convicts.^^ 

This  lease  was  not  renewed.  Upon  its  expiration  the  peni- 
tentiary was  again  placed  under  the  control  of  public  officers 
with  authority  to  direct  the  manner  in  which  the  prisoners 
should  be  employed.^^  In  1854  the  contract  system  of  dis- 
posing of  convict  labor  was  inaugurated,  and  this  system  has 
been  retained  until  the  present  time. 

By  the  agreement  of  1854  the  contractors,  John  H.  Winter- 
botham  and  W.  D.  Headley,  obtained  the  services  of  all  able 
bodied  men  in  the  penitentiary,  exclusive  of  those  detailed  for 
the  work  of  repairing,  cleaning,  and  cooking, ' '  to  be  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  Wagons,  Buggies,  Harness,  Saddletrees, 
Mechanical  and  Agricultural  Implements,  or  in  any  other  me- 
chanical trade  which  may  be  sanctioned  by  the  Warden." 
The  men  were  to  be  fed,  clothed,  and  disciplined  at  the  public 
charge;  and  the  State  was  to  furnish  shops  and  store-rooms 
within  the  walls  of  the  prison  and  to  allow  the  contractors 
the  free  use  of  all  tools  belonging  to  the  State  within  the 
prison  upon  the  sole  condition  that  they  should  be  returned 


20  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

in  good  order  upon  the  expiration  of  the  contract.  The  con- 
tractors undertook  to  provide  all  other  tools  and  materials 
and  to  pay  to  the  State  for  each  convict  employed  thirty  cents 
per  day  for  the  first  year  and  thirty-five  cents  per  day  for 
the  remaining  nine  years  of  the  life  of  the  contract.  This 
sum  was  not  to  be  paid  in  cash,  a  four  months'  credit  being 
allowed  so  that  the  contractors  might  dispose  of  their  product 
before  paying  for  their  labor.^'' 

Upon  the  expiration  of  the  Winterbotham  and  Headley 
contract  in  1864  a  ten  year  agreement  was  formed  with  Thomas 
Hale  and  Company,  Winterbotham  being  a  member  of  the  new 
firm.  This  contract  was  very  similar  to  the  one  of  ten  years 
before,  but  the  maximum  number  of  prisoners  to  be  employed 
on  contract  labor  was  fixed  at  one  hundred  fifty,  and  the  in- 
dustries were  limited  to  cooperage  and  the  manufacture  of 
agricultural  and  household  implements.  The  compensation  to 
be  paid  to  the  State  was  raised  from  thirty-five  to  forty  and 
one-third  cents  per  day,  computed  on  a  ten  hour  average  for 
the  year.^^ 

It  was  thought,  however,  that  forty  cents  a  day  was  too 
low  a  price  for  the  labor  of  able  bodied  men.^^  Accordingly, 
when  Hale  and  Company's  contract  was  about  to  expire,  the 
General  Assembly  passed  an  act,  in  1874,  directing  the  Gov- 
ernor to  appoint  three  Commissioners  with  power  to  let  the 
labor  of  three  hundred  convicts  for  five  years  at  a  minimum 
price  of  sixty  cents  per  day  per  man.^°  Upon  these  terms  a 
contract  was  made  with  Brown  and  Company  of  Columbus, 
Ohio,  (subsequently  known  as  the  Iowa  Farming  Tool  Com- 
pany) for  one  hundred  men  to  be  employed  in  the  manufacture 
of  agricultural  implements ;  another  with  Trebilcock  and  John- 
son of  Bloomfield,  Iowa,  for  fifty  men  to  be  used  in  making 
chairs,  coffins,  and  school  furniture;  and  a  third  with  O.  B. 
Dodge  of  Bed  Wing,  Minnesota,  for  one  hundred  men  for  the 
manufacture  of  boots  and  shoes  and  shoe  pacs.  Only  able 
bodied  men  sentenced  for  at  least  one  year  were  included  in 
these  contracts.    In  each  case  the  State  built,  maintained,  and 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  21 

heated  the  shops,  and  furnished,  free  of  charge,  a  certain 
number  of  ''lumpers",  to  do  cleaning,  build  fires,  and  run 
errands.  The  remaining  provisions  of  the  contracts  were  very 
similar  to  those  of  1854  and  of  1864.^^ 

The  hard  times  following  the  panic  of  1873  began  to  be 
felt  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  soon  after  the  prison  contracts 
of  1874  went  into  effect.  Dodge  and  Company  failed  during 
the  winter  of  1875-1876,  and  the  other  contractors  declared 
themselves  unable  to  continue  paying  the  contract  price  for 
prison  labor.^^  Their  representations  induced  the  G-eneral 
Assembly  to  repeal  the  section  of  the  law  of  1874  fixing  a  mini- 
mum price  for  convict  labor  and  to  authorize  the  Labor  Com- 
missioners of  the  penitentiary  to  make  new  contracts  at  their 
discretion,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Executive  Council.^^ 

The  Commissioners  used  the  power  granted  them  by  this 
act  to  reduce  the  price  of  prison  labor  to  forty-eight  cents  a 
day  for  the  tool  company,  and  to  forty-three  cents  for  the 
Fort  Madison  Chair  Company  (successors  of  Trebilcock  and 
Johnson).  Dodge  and  Company  were  replaced  by  the  Huis- 
kamp  firm  (shoe  manufacturers)  of  Keokuk,  Iowa,  who  took 
ninety  men  at  forty-three  cents  per  day,  and  four  "lumpers" 
at  nothing.^'^ 

The  return  of  prosperity  had  little  effect  upon  the  price 
of  prison  labor,  which  had  fallen  so  promptly  as  a  result  of 
the  panic.  The  Huiskamp  contract  was  renewed  in  1878  at 
forty-three  and  one-third  cents,^^  the  chair  contract  in  1880 
at  forty-three  cents  (forty-five  after  October  1,  1882)^^  and 
the  tool  contract  in  the  same  year  at  fifty  cents.^'^  Again  in 
1881  the  Huiskamps  were  able  to  make  an  eight  and  one-half 
year  contract  beginning  in  July,  1883,  at  forty-five  cents.^^ 
The  chair  contract  was  renewed  in  1888  ^^  and  again  in  1894  ^^^ 
at  fifty  cents  for  full  time  men  and  twenty-five  cents  for 
"lumpers".  The  rate  for  full  time  men  was  reduced  to  forty 
cents  in  1896  as  a  result  of  the  industrial  depression  from 
which  the  country  was  then  suffering  and  was  fixed  at  forty- 
five  cents  in  1900  after  the  restoration  of  prosperity.     The 


22  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

existing  contract  will  terminate,  partly  in  October,  1909,  and 
partly  in  April,  1910.  The  farming  tool  company  has  paid 
twenty-five  cents  a  day  for  'Mumpers"  since  1894;  for  full 
time  men  they  paid  fifty  cents  from  1894  to  1906,  and  fifty-five 
cents  from  January  1,  1906,  to  December  31,  1908.  From  the 
last  named  date  they  will  pay  sixty  cents  till  the  expiration 
of  their  contract  on  December  31,  1913.^^^ 

The  Huiskamp  shoe  contract  finally  expired  in  1894  and 
was  not  renewed.^°^  A  contract  was  entered  into  in  1899  with 
the  Iowa  Button  Company  for  fifty-seven  men  for  five  years 
at  fifty-five  cents  per  day.^*^^  These  men  were  to  be  employed 
in  the  manufacture  of  pearl  buttons  from  fresh-water  shells — 
an  industry  which  had  attained  much  importance  at  Musca- 
tine and  other  Mississippi  Eiver  points.  Outside  manufac- 
turers and  their  employees  strenuously  objected  to  prison 
competition,  and,  in  conjunction  with  the  Iowa  Federation  of 
Labor,^*^*  secured  the  passage  of  an  act  by  the  next  General 
Assembly  which  abolished  the  button  industry  at  the  peniten- 
tiary after  the  expiration  of  the  then  existing  contract.^^^ 

Thus,  ever  since  1854  the  prisoners  at  Fort  Madison  have 
been  employed  mainly  in  contract  labor.  The  following  manu- 
factures have  been  carried  on  under  this  system  for  the  periods 
specified :  farming  tools,  1854  to  the  present  day ;  chairs,  from 
1875  to  date;  shoes,  from  1878  to  1894;  shoe  pacs,  during  a 
part  of  the  years  1875-1876 ;  cigars,  for  a  few  months  in  1876 ; 
and  pearl  button  blanks,  from  1899  to  1904.  It  thus  appears 
that  farming  tools  and  chairs  have  been  and  still  are  the  great 
prison  industries  of  this  State.  During  the  biennial  period 
(ending  June  30,  1908),  of  approximately  443  inmates  at  the 
penitentiary,  the  tool  company  employed  one  hundred  and 
sixty-one  at  full  pay,  and  seventeen  at  half  pay;  the  chair 
company  used  one  hundred  and  forty  full  pay  men  and  eight 
'' lumpers ".^*^^  Neither  contract  was  full,  though  both  com- 
panies stood  ready  to  use  their  entire  quota. 

The  "task  system"  was  introduced  by  the  tool  company 
many  years  ago.    Under  this  plan  each  man  is  required  to  do 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  23 

a  minimum  day's  work,  said  to  be  equivalent  to  the  average 
amount  formerly  accomplished  in  ten  hours.  For  whatever 
he  does  over  and  above  this  task  he  receives  pay  at  the  same 
rate  as  the  average  compensation  paid  to  the  State  for  the 
same  amount  of  work.  The  opportunity  thus  afforded  to  earn 
a  small  pittance  for  themselves  is  greatly  valued  by  the  men 
and  is  a  strong  stimulus  to  exertion.  Competent  observers 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  tool  company's  men  work  as  hard 
as  do  most  employees  in  outside  factories.  The  chair  company 
has  not  seen  fit  to  adopt  the  task  system,  though  it  does  per- 
mit its  men  to  make  cane  seats  in  their  cells — a  practice  of 
doubtful  benefit  to  the  prisoners. 

The  price  received  by  the  State  for  prison  labor  has  varied 
little  in  thirty  years  and  is  actually  less  now  than  in  1875. 
The  workshops  are  built,  maintained,  heated,  lighted,  and 
furnished  with  water  at  the  expense  of  the  State.  The  con- 
tractors pay  only  from  two  and  one-half  to  six  cents  per  hour 
for  the  actual  working  time  of  able  bodied  men;  and  they 
make  payment,  not  in  cash,  but  in  notes  without  interest  due 
three  months  after  the  monthly  day  of  settlement.  It  might 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  prison  contracts  should  be  highly 
profitable.  The  contractors  themselves,  however,  deny  that 
they  are  making  anything  more  than  reasonable  profits.  The 
chair  company,  indeed,  declare  that  they  would  withdraw 
from  the  prison  altogether,  even  at  the  present  rates,  did  they 
not  already  have  heavy  investments  there. ^°'' 

Whether  or  not  contracts  more  advantageous  to  the  State 
than  those  at  present  in  force  might  be  secured,  the  writer 
does  not  pretend  to  say.  It  is  plain,  however,  that  prison 
labor  can  never  be  disposed  of  for  anything  like  the  com- 
pensation paid  for  free  labor.  The  inmates  of  penitentiaries 
are  composed  chiefly  of  persons  averse  by  nature  and  habit  to 
any  honest  industry.  The  most  rigorous  prison  discipline  can 
never  overcome  this  basic  difificulty.  Even  the  task  system, 
with  its  pay  for  extra  work,  is  only  partially  effective.  Again, 
the  prisoners  are  mostly  unskilled  at  the  time  of  their  entry 


24  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

and  have  to  learn  their  work  de  novo  while  in  prison.  The 
contractors  have  to  train  a  constantly  changing  force,  and 
are  always  losing  their  most  experienced  and  valuable  oper- 
atives through  expiration  of  sentence,  pardon,  or  parole.  Con- 
victs are  apt  to  be  wasteful  of  materials  and  indifferent  as 
to  the  quality  of  their  work  for  they  are  not  afraid  of  losing 
their  jobs,  and  they  have  little  prospect  of  promotion.  Fore- 
men competent  to  direct  prison  labor  are  scarce  and  difficult 
to  obtain,  since  many  of  the  best  men  will  not  work  in  a  prison 
at  any  price.  Prison  contracts  are  formed  for  a  term  of  years 
and  for  a  fixed  number  of  men,  so  that  the  contractor  is  not 
able  to  vary  his  working  force  according  to  the  needs  of  his 
business.  Indeed,  prisons  commonly  fill  up  during  slack  times 
and  decrease  in  population  when  trade  is  brisk.  The  laws  in 
some  States  and  public  opinion  everywhere  discriminate 
against  prison  products,  so  that  the  market  for  prison-made 
goods  is  often  more  or  less  restricted. 

In  addition  to  these  general  disadvantages,  common  to 
prison  labor  everywhere,  there  are  more  special  ones  ap- 
plicable to  Fort  Madison.  The  town  is  small  and  remote  from 
markets.  The  railway  switch  facilities  are  so  defective  that 
materials  have  to  be  brought  in  and  finished  products  taken 
out  in  wagons.  The  shops  are  old  and  poorly  adapted  to  their 
purposes.  It  cannot  be  expected,  therefore,  that  contractors 
will  pay  as  much  for  labor  at  this  prison  as  is  paid  at  prisons 
more  advantageously  situated. 

The  penitentiary  at  Fort  Madison  is  situated  in  the  south- 
east corner  of  the  State,  remote  from  the  center  of  popula- 
tion. Moreover,  owing  to  its  location  upon  the  side  of  a 
steep  hill,  enlargement  of  the  prison  is  a  matter  of  great  ex- 
pense and  difficulty.  An  additional  penitentiary  was,  there- 
fore, established  by  an  act  of  the  Fourteenth  General  Assem- 
bly (1872)^°^  and  was  located  at  Anamosa,  near  extensive 
stone  quarries  which  furnished  an  excellent  building  material. 
Until  1899  the  prisoners  at  Anamosa  were  employed  in  quar- 
rying, cutting,  and  dressing  stone,  in  the  work  of  construe- 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  25 

tion  and  in  other  necessary  work  about  the  jDrison.  In  the 
year  last  mentioned  a  contract  was  made  with  the  American 
Cooperage  Company  of  Ajiamosa  (a  member  of  the  cooperage 
trust)  for  the  services  of  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  inmates  for 
ten  years  at  five  cents  per  hour  for  the  manufacture  of  butter 
tubs.^'^^  A  daily  task  having  been  agreed  upon  between  the 
contractors  and  the  State  Board  of  Control,  the  prisoners  are 
paid  at  a  proportional  price  per  tub  for  extra  work.  Thus, 
while  the  State  received  $7,217.23  from  the  cooperage  contract 
during  the  biennial  period  ended  June  30, 1908,  $4,561.76  were 
paid  to  the  convicts  themselves.^^*^ 

It  had  been  generally  believed  that  contract  labor  was 
illegal  at  Anamosa.  The  contract  system  had,  indeed,  been 
expressly  forbidden  by  law  as  early  as  1876.^^^  This  restric- 
tion was  apparently  repealed  by  the  act  establishing  the  Board 
of  Control  in  1898,^^^  and  it  was  upon  that  assumption  that 
the  Board  acted  in  entering  into  the  cooperage  contract.  Nev- 
ertheless, the  introduction  of  contract  labor  at  Anamosa  was 
bitterly  resented  by  the  labor  unions,^^^  and  the  renewal  of 
the  cooperage  contract  was  forbidden  by  the  legislature  in 
1900.^^*  In  1907  the  additional  penitentiary  was  converted 
into  a  reformatory  for  the  confinement  of  first  offenders  be- 
tween the  ages  of  sixteen  and  thirty  years;  and  it  was  ex- 
pressly provided  that,  except  to  complete  existing  contracts, 
''inmates  of  the  reformatory  shall  be  employed  only  on  State 
account,  which  employment  shall  be  conducive  to  the  teaching 
of  useful  trades  and  callings  so  far  as  practicable,  and  the 
intellectual  and  moral  development  of  the  inmates  ".^^^ 

If  the  purpose  of  the  General  Assembly  is  ultimately  to 
make  of  the  Reformatory  at  Anamosa  a  sort  of  trade  school, 
that  object  is  still  far  from  realization.  About  thirty  men 
are  now  employed  by  the  American  Cooperage  Company, 
whose  contract  will  expire  in  1909.  These  men  are  not  being 
taught  any  regular  trade,  though  doubtless  they  learn  much 
that  would  be  of  value  to  them  in  similar  manufactories  out- 
side.   Some  fifty  short-termers  are  being  worked  in  the  quar- 


26  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

ries,  getting  out  stone  for  State  buildings  at  Anamosa,  Fort 
Madison,  and  elsewhere.  Apart  from  the  disciplinary  effect 
of  steady  industry  this  work  can  not  be  said  to  possess  great 
educative  value.  About  forty-five  prisoners  are  employed  in 
cutting  and  dressing  the  stone.  It  is  claimed  that  they  are  not 
projjerly  taught  the  stone  cutters'  trade,  but  it  is  clear  that 
they  easily  could  be,  though  of  course  only  within  the  limits  of 
the  single  grade  of  limestone  obtained  from  the  State  quarry. 

From  six  to  twelve  inmates  are  employed,  at  different 
seasons  of  the  year,  upon  the  prison  farm — work  which  is  both 
healthful  and  profitable,  but  in  which  only  ''trusties"  can 
be  employed.  A  printing  office  and  bindery  gives  emplo>Tnent 
to  ten  men  who  appear  to  be  acquiring  trades  at  the  same 
time  that  they  are  doing  work  interesting  in  itself  and  profit- 
able to  the  State.  The  necessary  tailoring  and  shoemaking 
for  the  Eeformatory  requires  the  labor  of  ten  inmates,  and 
is  of  unquestionable  value  to  the  men  so  engaged,  as  well  as 
a  saving  to  the  public  treasury.  Still  other  inmates  are 
utilized  in  the  kitchen  and  dining-room,  and  in  caring  for  the 
lawns,  flowers  and  shrubbery  in  the  prison  yard.-"^-*^^ 

It  would  appear,  then,  that  only  a  minority  of  the  present 
population  of  the  Eeformatory  is  engaged  in  employments 
of  great  educative  value. 

From  the  foregoing  account  it  will  be  seen  that  two  sys- 
tems of  prison  labor  are  and  have  long  been  in  use  in  this 
State — the  contract  system  and  the  jDublic  account  system. 
Each  has  its  advocates.  The  writer  has  been  credibly  in- 
formed that  the  American  Cooperage  Company  expects  to 
secure  a  modification  of  the  present  law  so  as  to  permit  of  a 
renewal  of  their  contract  at  Anamosa.  The  Chair  Company, 
whose  contract  at  Fort  Madison  is  about  to  expire,  is  already 
negotiating  for  an  extension.  On  the  other  hand,  organized 
labor  is  inflexibly  opposed  to  the  contract  system,  and  the 
Iowa  Federation  of  Labor  will  probably  seek  legislation  from 
the  next  General  Assembly  looking  toward  the  final  abolition 
of  that  system  in  the  Iowa  prisons. 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  27 

What,  then,  are  the  respective  merits  of  the  rival  systems? 
Should  either  be  adopted  to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  or 
should  both  be  retained?  The  solution  of  this  problem  lies 
outside  the  province  of  the  present  study.  But  some  discus- 
sion of  the  two  systems  in  the  light  of  Iowa  experience  may 
serve  to  make  clearer  the  nature  of  the  problem  and  the 
progress  which  already  has  been  made  toward  its  solution. 

Penologists  are  agreed  that  prison  inmates  should  be  given 
some  regular  employment,  both  for  the  preservation  of  their 
health  and  as  a  means  of  reformation.  It  is  generally  recog- 
nized, moreover,  that  this  employment  should  be  made,  so  far 
as  practicable,  productive.  Purposive  work  is  always  more 
valuable  as  a  means  of  training  than  work  done  merely  to 
consume  time.  Nor  is  there  any  good  reason  why  men  who 
have  forfeited  their  right  to  freedom  should  not  be  required 
to  contribute  to  their  own  support.  Care  must  always  be 
taken,  however,  not  to  bring  the  unpaid  or  low  paid  labor  of 
the  prison  into  unfair  competition  with  free  industry.  Finally, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  great  and  increasing  majority  of 
prison  inmates  will  sooner  or  later  be  set  at  large,  their  em- 
ployment during  confinement  should  be  such  as  to  aid  them 
in  becoming  useful  members  of  society  upon  their  release. 

Prison  industries,  then,  should  be  healthful  and  interest- 
ing in  themselves,  profitable  to  the  State  without  interfering 
with  outside  industry,  and  of  distinct  educative  value  to  the 
prisoners.  How  far  are  these  conditions  fulfilled  by  the  vari- 
ous employments  in  the  prisons  of  Iowa? 

In  the  first  place  it  is  safe  to  say  that  none  of  the  employ- 
ments in  either  of  our  State  prisons  is  positively  unhealthful. 
The  sanitary  condition  of  all  the  shops  is  good;  dangerous 
machinery,  wherever  used,  is  properly  guarded;  all  offensive 
dust  is  carried  away  by  a  system  of  blowers  and  pipes  more 
effective  than  those  found  in  most  privately  conducted  fac- 
tories. On  the  other  hand,  just  complaint  is  made  of  excessive 
hours  at  Fort  Madison.  The  contracts  call  for  a  ten  hours' 
average  throughout  the  j^ear.     Since  it  is  not  deemed  safe 


28  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

to  have  the  men  out  of  their  cells  between  sunset  and  sunrise, 
the  hours  of  work  are  reduced  to  eight  during  the  shortest 
days  and  extended  to  twelve  on  the  longest.  The  existing  con- 
tract with  the  tool  company  empowers  the  Board  of  Control 
to  reduce  the  average  working  time  to  nine  hours  without 
affecting  the  compensation  to  the  State.  But  this  power  has 
never  been  exercised  owing  to  the  absence  of  a  similar  pro- 
vision in  the  chair  contract.  Probably  such  a  provision  will  be 
inserted  in  any  future  contracts  made  by  the  Board. 

It  is  usually  asserted  that  the  contract  system  is  the  most 
advantageous  method  of  disposing  of  prison  labor  from  a 
pecuniary  point  of  view.  But  the  contract  system  has  never 
made  the  Iowa  penitentiary  self-sustaining,  even  when  the 
number  of  prisoners  employed  upon  contracts  was  at  a  maxi- 
mum. Indeed,  the  cost  of  care  and  support,  without  any  allow- 
ance for  prison  construction  or  repair,  is  now  rather  more 
than  sixty-two  cents  per  day  for  each  inmate,  whereas  the 
maximum  contract  wage  is  but  fifty-five  cents.^^'^  Thus,  an 
able-bodied  prisoner  working  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
days  a  year  would  not  pay  for  his  own  maintenance. 

Organized  labor  bases  its  opposition  to  contract  labor  in 
prisons  principally  upon  the  ground  of  competition  with  free 
labor.  It  is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  prison  inmates  form 
so  small  a  part  of  the  whole  labor  force  of  the  country  that 
their  competition  is  not  to  be  feared  by  wage  earners  unless 
their  labor  is  concentrated  upon  particular  products  having 
a  restricted  market.  The  articles  manufactured  by  contract 
in  the  prisons  of  Iowa — namely,  farming  tools,  chairs,  and 
butter  tubs — all  have  an  extended  market.  Free  labor  has 
little  to  fear  from  prison  competition  in  these  industries, 
unless  they  arc  established  in  a  large  number  of  prisons.  But 
the  competition  of  prison  labor  may  be  felt  locally,  as  in  the 
case  of  butter  tubs  and  pearl  buttons,  even  when  it  has  no 
appreciable  effect  in  the  markets  of  the  world. 

After  all  the  main  consideration  in  any  discussion  of 
prison  employments  is  the  efltect  of  such  employments  upon 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  29 

the  prisoners  themselves.  If  these  unfortunate  men  can  be 
restored  to  society  as  self-sustaining  citizens,  the  saving  to 
the  State  affected  thereby  will  in  a  few  years  greatly  out- 
weigh any  possible  gains  from  their  labor  while  in  prison. 
The  crucial  test  to  be  applied  to  any  system  of  prison  labor 
is,  then,  does  it  tend  to  prepare  its  subjects  for  the  earning 
of  a  livelihood  after  discharge? 

The  writer  does  not  believe  that  the  contract  system  satis- 
factorily meets  this  test.  Contractors  have  no  interest  in  the 
prisoners  except  to  get  the  utmost  possible  amount  of  work 
out  of  them.  The  hours  exacted  are  so  long  that  the  men 
employed  upon  contract  work  have  little  time  or  energy  left 
for  mental  and  moral  improvement.  They  do  not  acquire  a 
trade,  and  they  learn  little  of  machinery  except,  perhaps,  a 
single  mechanical  process.  Even  from  a  disciplinary  point 
of  view,  contract  labor  is  not  the  most  efficacious.  For  while 
a  man  imprisoned  for  crime  may  be  convinced  of  his  duty  to 
make  restitution  to  society,  he  is  not  so  easily  persuaded  that 
his  labor  ought  to  be  exploited  for  private  profit. 

On  general  social  and  economic  grounds  cheap  labor  is  an 
undoubted  evil.  Not  only  does  such  labor  tend  to  depress 
wages  and  consequently  the  standard  of  living  among  com- 
peting groups,  but  it  fosters  an  inferior  grade  of  entrepreneurs 
and  inferior  methods  of  production.  Prison  labor  is  sought 
by  private  contractors  solely  because  it  may  be  obtained 
cheaply.  It  is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  society  that  such 
a  system  should  be  maintained  if  a  satisfactory  substitute  can 
be  found. 

Does  the  public  account  system  afford  such  a  substitute? 
The  same  tests  may  be  applied  as  in  the  case  of  the  contract 
system. 

It  is  impossible  to  deny,  in  the  first  place,  that  much  of  the 
labor  upon  public  account  at  Anamosa  has  been  uneconomically 
expended.  The  State  quariy  is  buried  under  such  a  depth 
of  drift  and  worthless  stone  that  it  would  probably  not  pay 
a  private  owner  to  work  the  ledge.    Extra  guards  are  required 


30  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

at  the  quarry  as  in  all  outside  work.  Notwithstanding  this 
handicap,  Warden  Madden  estimated,  some  years  ago,  that 
prisoners  employed  in  quarrying  and  dressing  stone  and  in 
the  construction  of  the  prison  earned  for  the  State,  on  the 
average,  seventy-six  cents  a  day  over  and  above  the  cost  of 
feeding  and  clothing  them.^^^  The  present  wardens  agree  that 
the  prisoners  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  clothing  and  shoes 
for  prison  use  are  worth  far  more  to  the  State  than  those 
employed  upon  private  contracts.  Financially,  then,  the  pub- 
lic account  system,  as  thus  far  developed,  is  by  no  means  a 
failure. 

Does  prison  labor  upon  public  account  come  into  competi- 
tion with  free  labor?  Clearly,  yes.  The  prison  products  dis- 
place an  equivalent  amount  of  the  products  of  outside  indus- 
try, whether  they  are  used  by  the  State  or  sold  upon  the 
market.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  no  well  founded  objec- 
tion can  be  raised,  upon  this  score,  against  manufactures  car- 
ried on  by  the  State  for  its  own  use.  The  quantity  of  most 
commodities  which  would  be  purchased  by  the  State  in  any 
case  is  so  small  as  to  have  little  influence  upon  prices.  The 
case  might  be  different  were  the  State  to  engage  in  manu- 
facturing for  the  market.  Several  projects  of  this  nature 
were  proposed  several  years  ago  for  the  prison  at  Anamosa,^^® 
but  were  not  adopted. 

There  is  little  room  to  doubt  that  the  public  account  sys- 
tem is  more  favorable  to  industrial  training  than  the  private 
contract  system.  The  State  can  afford,  as  a  contractor  can 
not  do,  to  subordinate  pecuniary  profit  to  larger  social  ends. 
Public  officials  are  more  likely  than  are  contractors'  foremen 
to  take  a  humanitarian  interest  in  their  wards.  Schools  and 
other  educational  features  of  prison  life  are  more  apt  to 
flourish  when  the  prisoners  are  working  only  for  the  State 
than  when  they  are  employed  by  private  manufacturers. 

But  if  it  be  conceded  that  the  public  account  system  is 
theoretically  better  than  the  system  of  private  contracts  the 
question  still  remains,  is  the  former  practicable?    The  ques- 


CONVICT  LABOR  LEGISLATION  31 

tion  is  not  to  be  answered  off-hand.  It  is  to  be  determined 
whether  the  State  can  furnish  suitable  employment  for  its 
entire  prison  population  without  too  great  drain  upon  the 
public  treasury  and  without  undue  interference  with  private 
enterprise. 

Hitherto  prison  construction  has  absorbed  the  greater  part 
of  the  labor  employed  upon  public  account.  There  is  still  con- 
siderable work  to  be  done  in  the  way  of  extension  and  im- 
provement both  at  Fort  Madison  and  at  Anamosa.  There  will 
always  be  enough  construction  and  repair  work  to  employ  a 
certain  number  of  men.  But  clearly  construction  can  not  con- 
tinue to  be  the  principal  employment  at  either  prison. 

A  wider  field  is  offered  by  the  needs  of  the  eight  thousand 
inmates  in  the  various  charitable  and  correctional  institutions 
supported  by  the  State.  Manufacture  for  this  population, 
and  possibly  for  the  population  of  similar  county  and  munici- 
pal institutions,  might  conceivably  absorb  the  entire  disposable 
labor  of  both  the  Penitentiary  and  Reformatory.  But  the 
commodities  needed  for  institutional  use  are  very  various  in 
kind  and  closely  limited  in  quantity.  To  manufacture  all  the 
clothing,  furniture  and  implements  used  in  such  institutions 
would  require  an  enormous  outlay  for  equipment  and  for  fore- 
men to  direct  each  department  of  work.  No  doubt  some  of 
these  articles  could  profitably  be  manufactured  at  the  State 
prisons ;  others  probably  could  not  be.  The  feasibility  of  any 
given  manufacture  will  depend  largely  upon  the  cost  of  the 
necessary  plant  and  the  extent  of  the  State's  demand  for  the 
product.  The  present  Board  of  Control  is  favorable  to  the 
gradual  introduction  of  such  manufactures  so  far  as  deemed 
practicable. 

The  prison  press  at  Anamosa  has  already  been  mentioned 
in  these  pages.  The  printing  for  the  State  Board  of  Control 
is  now  being  done  there,  and  the  advisability  of  enlarging  the 
plant  so  as  to  do  all  the  State  printing  and  binding  at  the 
Reformatory  is  under  consideration. ^^^  This  plan  is  strenu- 
ously opposed  by  organized  labor  on  the  ground  that  it  would 


32  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

displace  union  men  now  employed  by  the  State  Printer  and 
State  Binder.^^^  Their  claims  are  not  to  be  dismissed  too 
cavalierly.  The  sudden  withdrawal  of  the  State  printing  from 
the  labor  market  would  probably  be  severely  felt  locally  at 
least  for  a  time.  If,  however,  the  permanent  interests  of  the 
public  would  be  served  by  the  gradual  transfer  of  this  work 
to  the  prison,  the  interest  of  a  small  class  should  not  be  per- 
mitted to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  change. 

The  question  of  the  proper  disposal  of  prison  labor  is  no 
simple  one.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  problem  has  been 
satisfactorily  solved  in  this  State.  Further  experimentation 
and  a  more  careful  study  of  experience  elsewhere  are  required 
for  the  working  out  of  an  adequate  solution. 


IV 

MINE  LABOE   LEGISLATION 

Of  Iowa  legislation  in  behalf  of  a  particular  group  of 
workingmen,  the  mine  laws  are  much  the  most  important  and 
voluminous.  Coal  mining  is  an  extra  hazardous  occupation, 
and  it  is  an  occupation,  moreover,  which  offers  peculiar  oppor- 
tunities for  the  exploitation  of  employees  by  employers. 

Mining  labor  laws,  accordingly,  are  of  two  kinds — those 
which  seek  to  protect  the  lives  and  limbs  of  miners,  and  those 
whose  purpose  is  to  secure  to  miners  the  full  control  of  wages. 

DEVELOPMENT  OF   THE  MINING  INDUSTRY  IN  IOWA 

Lead  mining  in  Iowa  began  in  the  days  of  the  Spanish 
occupation  and  reached  its  highest  development  in  the  period 
of  early  Statehood.  This  industry,  which  has  long  ceased  to 
be  of  much  consequence,  never  played  any  important  part  in 
legislation.  Its  history  is  romantic,  but  belongs  rather  to  the 
socio-economic  than  to  the  legislative  investigator.^^^ 

Very  different  is  the  case  of  the  coal  mining  industry. 
Beginning  much  later,  it  has  enjoyed  continued  expansion  and 
has  received  increasing  attention  from  the  legislature  for  a 
period  of  nearly  forty  years.  Public  attention  was  first  di- 
rected to  the  Iowa  coal  fields  by  D.  D.  Owens,  who  made  a 
geological  reconnoissance  of  the  State  in  1847  under  the  aus- 
pices of  the  Federal  Land  Office.^^^  Small  coimtry  banks  were 
opened  at  a  very  early  period,  supplying  fuel  for  local  use.^^* 
By  1860  the  product  had  become  important  enough  to  be 
noticed  in  the  United  States  Census.  It  was  then  found  that 
48,263  short  tons  of  soft  coal  had  been  mined  within  the  limits 
of  the  State  during  the  preceding  year.^^^  Ten  years  later 
the  output  was  283,467  tons,  valued  at  over  half  a  million  dol- 


34  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

lars.^2^    Coal  mining  was  now  an  established  industry  in  Iowa. 
Its  growth  is  illustrated  by  the  accompanying  table. 


TABLE  I- 

-DEVELOPMENT   OF   COAL   MINING   IN 

IOWA 

CO 

■J   OQ 

g 

S 

-1 

o  o 

n 

o 

^    J    g 

g 

°^i 

^  >• 

'4 

m 

9  E^   § 

St 

>< 

^ 

Z 

W  o  cu 

o  » 

1859127 

48,263 

1869127 

283,467 

1878-9127 

1,461,166 

1881128 

3,500,000 

1882128 

3,127,700 

1883128 

3,881,300 

1884128 

3,903,438 

1885128 

3,585,737 

1886128 

3,853,374 

1887128 

3,864,490 

1888128 

403 

4,435,046 

12,483 

1889128 

390 

3,746,819 

12,497 

1890128 

344 

3,980,502 

9,893 

1891128 

377 

3,721,981 

9,130 

1892128 

298 

4,047,479 

9,307 

1893128 

337 

4,614,872 

10,486 

1894128 

323 

3,777,393 

10,258 

1895128 

342 

3,195,836 

10,992 

1896128 

355 

3,525,490 

11,451 

1897128 

360 

3,799,734 

11,678 

1898128 

357 

4,397,722 

10,550 

1899128 

358 

4,949,310 

11,029 

1900128 

385 

5,117,285 

13,041 

1901128 

385 

5,441,863 

13,175 

1902128 

334 

5,514,206 

13,002 

1903128 

313 

6,185,734 

13,192 

1904128 

300 

6,214,379 

16,315 

1905128 

326 

6,806,011 

17,624 

1906128 

309 

7,017,485 

16,825 

MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  35 

Iowa  now  ranks  ninth  among  the  States  in  the  quantity 
and  eighth  in  the  value  of  soft  coal  mined.^^^  The  coal  mines 
give  emplojTuent  to  about  seventeen  thousand  men  (16,825) 
besides  the  large  number  employed  in  the  distribution  of  the 
product  and  in  the  industries  to  which  coal  mining  gives  rise. 
The  position  of  coal  among  the  mining  interests  of  the  State 
is  strikingly  shown  in  the  subjoined  table  of  mineral  products 
for  1906.13O 

TABLE   II 

Coal   $11,619,455 

Clay   3,477,237 

Stone,  including  lime 577,782 

Gypsum   573,498 

Lead  and  zinc 26,300 

Sand-lime  brick 38,255 

Mineral  paint  and  mineral  water 27,540 

Sand  and  gravel  74,380 

Total    $16,414,447 

DEVELOPMENT  OF  MINING  LABOR  LEGISLATION 

Except  for  a  miners'  lien  law  (in  force  from  1838  to 
1851)^^^  mining  labor  legislation  in  Iowa  did  not  begin  until 
1872.  The  ''Act  for  the  Protection  of  the  Life  and  Health  of 
Miners",  passed  in  that  year  contained  but  four  sections  and 
related  only  to  the  inspection  of  mines  by  county  authority 
and  to  liability  of  the  mine-owners  for  injuries  to  employees.^^^ 
Two  years  later  (1874)  was  passed  an  "Act  for  the  Inspec- 
tion of  Coal  Mines",  which  was  three  times  as  long  and  con- 
tained many  additional  provisions.^^^  This  law  was  replaced 
in  1880  by  the  much  more  comprehensive  "Act  to  Eegulate 
Mines  and  Mining 'V^*  which  was  passed  at  the  instance  of 
the  Knights  of  Labor. 

About  1882  there  was  organized  the  "Amalgamated  As^so- 
ciation  of  Miners  of  the  State  of  Iowa",  composed  of  the 
mining  membership  of  Districts  Thirteen  and  Twenty-eight, 
of  the  Knights  of  Labor.     At  the  State  convention,  held  at 


36  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Oskaloosa  in  the  following  year,  the  Association  invited  the 
operators  to  meet  their  delegates  in  joint  conference.  The 
joint  convention  (the  first  of  its  kind  in  the  history  of  Iowa 
coal  mining)  assembled  at  Des  Moines  in  July  and  again  in 
August,  1883,  and  at  the  latter  meeting  appointed  a  legis- 
lative committee  of  four  miners  and  four  operators  to  pre- 
pare a  mine  law  and  present  the  same  to  the  legislature.^^^ 
The  result  of  their  deliberations  was  the  Mines  and  Mining 
Act  of  1884,  which  is  still  the  basis  of  the  mine  law  of  lowa.^^^ 
The  act  of  1884  was  altered  and  added  to  from  time  to 
time  down  to  1897  when  the  existing  mine  law  was  consoli- 
dated as  a  separate  chapter  of  the  Code  (Title  XII,  Chapter 
IX).  About  a  dozen  acts  in  amendment  of  or  in  addition  to 
the  provisions  of  the  Code  have  been  passed  since  1897.  The 
mine  laws  of  Iowa,  which  began  with  the  four  brief  sections 
of  the  act  of  1872,  now  form  a  pamphlet  of  respectable  dimen- 
sions. The  various  sections  relate  to  the  means  of  exit  from 
coal  mines,  the  mode  and  amount  of  ventilation,  the  manner 
of  illuminating,  the  storage  and  use  of  explosives,  the  proper 
timbering  of  rooms  and  entrances,  the  safe-guarding  of  hoist- 
ing machinery,  the  qualifications  of  foremen  and  engineers, 
the  public  inspection  of  mines,  the  weighing  and  screening  of 
coal,  semi-monthly  settlement  and  the  payment  of  wages  in 
cash,  and  liens  for  work  done  in  the  development  of  mining 
property. 

MINE    INSPECTION 
COUNTY  INSPECTOKS    1872-1880 

The  mine  act  of  1872  required  the  Board  of  Supervisors 
in  each  county  where  coal  or  other  minerals  were  being  mined 
to  appoint  a  competent  inspector  annually,  whose  duty  it 
should  be  to  inspect  any  mine  within  such  county  upon  the 
written  application  of  the  owner,  operator,  or  employees 
thereof.  The  Inspector's  compensation  was  fixed  at  four 
dollars  per  day,  to  be  paid  by  the  owners  or  operators,  except 
that  where  an  inspection  was  found  to  have  been  unnecessary 
the  fees  must  be  paid  by  the  persons  applying  for  the  same.^^^ 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  37 

By  the  act  of  1874  it  was  made  the  duty  of  the  County 
Inspector  to  inspect  all  mines  and  collieries  in  his  county,  at 
which  ten  or  more  miners  were  employed,  at  least  twice  each 
year.  He  further  had  the  right  to  enter  and  inspect  any  mine 
in  his  district  at  such  times  as  he  might  see  fit,  and  in  case 
of  the  refusal  of  the  owner  or  operator  to  permit  inspection 
he  might  obtain  an  order  for  such  permission  from  the  judge 
of  the  Circuit  or  District  Court.  He  must  promptly  examine 
any  mine  upon  the  written  request  of  five  miners  working 
therein  or  the  owner  or  operator  thereof,  provided  the  parties 
applying  should  have  deposited  with  the  county  clerk  a  suffi- 
cient sum  to  defray  the  expenses  of  inspection.  The  Inspect- 
or's per  diem  was  changed  from  four  to  three  dollars,  to  be 
paid  out  of  the  county  treasury.  But  where  on  inspection  the 
requirements  of  the  law  were  found  not  to  have  been  com- 
plied with,  the  expense  of  inspection  was  charged  to  the  oper- 
ator. An  inspection  demanded  by  employees  must  be  paid 
for  by  them  if  found  to  have  been  unnecessary,  but  if  the 
mine  proved  defective,  the  expense  of  inspection  must  be 
borne  by  the  operator.^^^ 

Under  these  laws  Mine  Inspectors  were  appointed  in  sev- 
eral of  the  principal  coal  mining  counties  of  the  State. ^^^ 
These  men  were  practical  miners;  usually  they  possessed  but 
little  theoretic  knowledge  of  their  profession.  Their  methods 
of  inspection  were  crude ;  their  powers  limited.  They  were  not 
required  to  devote  their  entire  time  to  the  duties  of  their  office, 
but  might  manage  mines  of  their  own  or  act  as  *'pit  bosses" 
for  operating  companies.  The  number  of  mines  in  any  one 
county  was,  in  fact,  too  small  to  justify  the  employment  of  a 
really  competent  inspector  who  should  devote  his  whole  time 
to  the  work.  The  system  of  county  inspection  was  a  make- 
shift at  best.  It  was  wisely  abandoned  in  the  mines  and  mining 
act  of  1880. 

STATE    INSPECTORS    1880-1886 

The  act  of  1880  provided  for  a  State  Inspector  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  Governor  and  Senate,  to  hold  office  for  two 


38  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

years,  and  to  receive  a  salary  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  per 
annum.  The  Inspector  must ' '  have  a  theoretical  and  practical 
knowledge  of  the  different  systems  of  working  and  ventilating 
coal  mines,  and  of  the  nature  and  properties  of  the  noxious 
and  poisonous  gases  of  mines,  and  of  mining  engineering"; 
he  must  not,  while  in  office,  act  as  an  agent,  or  manager,  or 
mining  engineer,  or  be  interested  in  operating  any  mine.  He 
must  examine  all  mines  in  the  State  as  often  as  his  duties 
would  permit;  he  was  authorized  to  inspect  any  mine,  and 
the  works  and  machinery  belonging  thereto,  at  all  reasonable 
times.  He  was  provided  with  an  office  in  the  Capitol  at  Des 
Moines  and  was  furnished  all  necessary  instruments  at  the 
expense  of  the  State.  The  Inspector  was  subject  to  removal 
by  the  Grovemor  for  malfeasance  in  office  or  gross  neglect  of 
duty,  after  hearing  and  conviction  by  a  board  consisting  of 
two  practical  miners,  one  mining  engineer,  and  two  mine 
operators.^**^ 

The  foregoing  provisions  were  retained  in  the  law  of  1884, 
except  that  the  Inspector's  salary  was  raised  from  fifteen  to 
seventeen  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  with  an  allowance  for 
stationery  and  traveling  expenses,  not  to  exceed  five  hundred 
dollars  in  any  one  year.^^^  But  one  Mine  Inspector  was  ever 
appointed  under  these  two  laws — Mr.  Park  C.  Wilson,  who 
held  the  office  until  the  adoption  of  the  district  system. 

DISTRICT  STATE  INSPECTORS 

It  soon  became  evident  that  a  single  inspector  could  not 
visit  each  of  the  five  hundred  coal  mines  in  Iowa  often  enough 
to  secure  compliance  with  the  law.  Accordingly  Inspector 
Wilson  recommended  in  1885  that  provision  be  made  for  one 
chief  Mine  Inspector  and  two  assistants.^*^  This  plan,  which 
would  have  given  unity  to  the  work  of  mine  inspection,  was 
not  adopted  by  the  legislature.  Instead  an  act  was  passed 
(1886)  providing  for  three  Inspectors  of  equal  rank,  to  be 
assigned  to  districts  by  the  Governor.  The  method  of  ap- 
pointment, the  term,  and  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  the, 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  39 

Inspector  remained  the  same  as  under  the  law  of  1880.  Their 
salaries  were  twelve  hundred  dollars  per  year,  with  station- 
ery and  traveling  expenses  as  before.  The  office  in  the  State 
Capitol  was  retained.^*^ 

Hitherto  the  mine  inspectorship  had  been  treated  as  a 
political  office.  The  law  specified  certain  qualifications,  but 
required  no  proof  of  their  possession  by  the  incumbent.  In 
1888  an  attempt  was  made  to  put  the  office  on  a  merit  basis. 
An  act  passed  in  that  year  created  a  permanent  board  of  exam- 
iners, constituted  like  the  trial  board  already  provided  for  and 
appointed  by  the  Executive  Council  for  two  years.  Candi- 
dates for  the  office  of  Mine  Inspector  were  to  be  examined  by 
this  board  and  appointments  must  be  made  from  persons 
holding  certificates  of  competency  granted  by  the  board.^^* 
Since  1902  all  members  of  the  board  of  examiners,  except  the 
mining  engineer,  must  hold  certificates  of  competency  as  mine 
foremen,  and  one  at  least  must  be  a  certificated  hoisting  en- 
gineer. All  must  have  had  at  least  five  years'  practical  ex- 
perience.^*^ 

The  merit  system  has  now  been  in  force  for  twenty  years. 
Under  it  but  ten  different  Inspectors  have  been  appointed  in 
the  three  districts — an  average  tenure  of  six  years.  Notwith- 
standing some  charges  of  political  favoritism,  the  system  ap- 
pears on  the  whole  to  have  worked  fairly  well.  It  has  se- 
cured competent  Inspectors,  and  it  has  given  them  reasonable 
security  of  tenure. 

The  number  of  coal  mines  in  Iowa  does  not  now  much  ex- 
ceed three  hundred.  No  Inspector  has  more  than  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  mines  within  his  jurisdiction.^*^  The  law  re- 
quires that  each  mine  having  an  average  daily  output  of  fifty 
tons  or  more  shall  be  inspected  at  least  once  in  every  six 
months,^*"^  and  this  requirement  would  seem  very  easy  to  meet. 
In  practice  the  larger  mines  are  inspected  much  of tener.  Mine 
inspectors  now  receive  eighteen  hundred  dollars  per  year 
with  a  traveling  allowance  of  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars.i*8 


40  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

REPORTS  OF  THE  STATE  MINE  INSPECTORS 

By  the  act  creating  the  office  of  State  Mine  Inspector  it 
was  provided  that  "Said  inspector  ....  shall  annually, 
on  or  before  the  first  day  of  January,  make  a  report  to  the 
governor  of  his  proceedings,  and  the  condition  and  operations 
of  the  mines  in  this  State,  enumerating  all  accidents  in  or  about 
the  same,  and  giving  all  such  information  as  he  may  think 
useful  and  proper,  and  making  such  suggestions  as  he  may 
deem  important  as  to  further  legislation  on  the  subject  of 
mining.  "^^^  The  law  was  changed  in  1882  so  as  to  require  a 
report  on  or  before  the  fifteenth  day  of  August  next  pre- 
ceding each  regular  session  of  the  General  Assembly.^^^ 
Twelve  reports  were  issued  under  this  requirement  for  bien- 
nial periods  ending  June  thirtieth  in  odd  numbered  years.  A 
change  to  even  numbered  years  was  made  in  1906.^^^ 

The  Mine  Inspectors'  Report  makes  a  paper-bound  pam- 
phlet of  about  one  hundred  pages,  of  which  fifteen  hundred 
copies  are  issued. ^^^  The  report  gives  a  summary  of  the  num- 
ber of  mines,  number  of  miners  and  other  employees,  produc- 
tion of  coal,  and  the  number  of  fatal  and  non-fatal  accidents. 
Then  follows  a  very  detailed  report  for  each  district,  by  coun- 
ties, with  recommendations  of  the  several  Inspectors  and  dis- 
cussions of  current  mining  topics. 

MINE  MAPS 

Since  1880  it  has  been  the  duty  of  every  mine  operator  to 
keep  in  his  office,  subject  to  inspection,  a  map  of  each  mine 
worked  by  him,  and  to  have  the  same  corrected  to  date  an- 
nually on  or  before  the  first  day  of  September.  In  case  the 
operator  fails  to  provide  such  maps  the  Inspector  may  have 
one  made  at  the  expense  of  the  operator.^^^  Since  1897  a 
correct  map  of  every  abandoned  mine  must  be  deposited  by 
the  owner  thereof  in  the  Inspector's  office, ^^*  Similar  pro- 
visions are  found  in  the  laws  of  most  coal  mining  states.  Re- 
liable maps  are  necessary  to  the  proper  discharge  of  the 
mine  Inspector's  duties.     His  work  would  be  further  facili- 


MINE  LABOE  LEGISLATION  41 

tated  if  recent  maps  of  all  mines  within  his  territory  were 
filed  in  his  office. 

liAWS   PROTECTING   THE   HEAX.TH   AND   SAFETY   OF   MINERS 
MINE  EXITS 

A  coal  seam  of  any  depth  is  commonly  reached  by  a  shaft 
or  slope  which  serves  at  once  as  the  hoisting  way  for  coal 
and  as  the  means  of  ingress  and  egress  for  the  men  working 
in  the  mine.  Such  an  opening  is  liable  to  be  closed  at  any 
time  by  the  caving  in  of  the  sides.  Access  to  it  may  be  cut 
off  by  falls  of  roof  in  the  entrances.  It  may  be  made  unavail- 
able by  an  accident  to  the  hoisting  machinery,  or  by  a  fire  at 
the  top  works.  Hence  a  second  mode  of  escape  is  of  the  ut- 
most importance  to  the  safety  of  the  underground  workmen. 
All  of  the  general  mining  laws  of  Iowa  have  contained  pro- 
visions upon  this  subject. 

The  act  of  1872  empowered  the  County  Mine  Inspector  to 
*' determine  the  number  and  capacity  of  additional  entrances 
or  shafts  ....  necessary  ....  to  afford  ingress 
and  egress  to  such  mines  in  case  of  explosions,  or  the  falling- 
in  of  the  entrance  or  shaft  to  such  mines.  "^^^  In  the  law  of 
1874  the  provisions  were  the  same  except  that  they  restricted 
the  Inspector's  powers  to  mines  employing  more  than  ten 
persons. ^^^ 

By  the  act  of  1880  the  owner  or  agent  of  any  coal  mine 
operated  by  shaft  or  slope  was  forbidden  to  employ  or  per- 
mit more  than  fifteen  persons  at  one  time  to  work  therein  un- 
less there  were  to  every  seam  of  coal  two  outlets  separated 
by  at  least  fifty  feet  of  natural  strata.  The  State  Mine  In- 
spector might  require  two  outlets  in  smaller  mines,  subject, 
however,  to  an  appeal  to  the  Circuit  Court.^^'^ 

The  law  of  1884  was  much  more  detailed.  Mines  there- 
after opened,  if  worked  by  shaft,  must  have  two  outlets  sep- 
arated by  not  less  than  one  hundred  feet  of  natural  strata ; 
if  worked  by  slope  or  drift  and  employing  more  than  five 
men,  the  openings  must  be  at  least  fifty  feet  apart.    The  rea- 


42  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

son  for  this  distinction  is  that  a  hoisting  shaft  commonly  is 
and  a  slope  or  drift  commonly  is  not  covered  with  buildings 
the  heat  from  which  in  case  of  fire  would  render  useless  an 
escape  shaft  only  fifty  feet  away.^^^  Mines  opened  under  the 
law  of  1880  with  an  escape  shaft  less  than  one  hundred  feet 
from  the  hoisting  shaft  must  be  provided  with  an  underground 
traveling-way  from  the  top  of  the  escape  to  a  distance  of  one 
hundred  feet  from  the  hoisting  shaft.  Where  the  upcast  of 
a  ventilating  furnace  is  used  as  an  escape  shaft,  it  must  be 
divided  by  a  solid  partition  composed  of  incombustible  mate- 
rial for  a  distance  of  fifteen  feet  from  the  bottom  and  carried 
to  the  surface  so  as  to  exclude  heated  air  and  smoke  from 
the  man  way.  Every  escape  shaft  must  be  fitted  with  safe 
and  convenient  stairs  at  an  angle  of  not  more  than  sixty  de- 
grees descent  and  with  landings  at  easy  and  convenient  dis- 
tances. Air  shafts  used  as  escapes  where  fans  are  employed 
for  ventilation  must  be  provided  with  suitable  means  for  hoist- 
ing the  underground  workmen.  Traveling  ways  leading  to 
escape  shafts  in  all  coal  mines  must  be  kept  free  from  water 
and  falls  of  roof.  No  combustible  material  may  be  allowed 
between  any  escape  shaft  and  hoisting  shaft  except  such  as 
is  absolutely  necessary  for  the  operation  of  the  mine.  Fi- 
nally, where  two  or  more  mines  are  connected  underground, 
the  owners  may  make  joint  provision  for  the  use  of  each 
other's  hoisting  shafts  or  slopes  as  escape  shafts.^^^ 

In  1888  it  was  enacted  that  no  escapement  shaft  shall  be 
sunk  within  a  less  distance  than  three  hundred  feet  from  the 
main  shaft  without  the  consent  of  the  District  Inspector  of 
Mines,  and  that  no  such  shaft  shall  be  located  until  the  In- 
spector shall  determine  the  proper  distance  for  the  same.  No 
buildings,  except  the  house  necessary  to  cover  the  fan,  may 
be  put  nearer  the  escape  shaft  than  one  hundred  feet.  But 
where  the  escape  way  is  lost  or  destroyed  by  the  drawing  of 
pillars  preparatory  to  the  abandonment  of  a  mine,  the  mine 
may  nevertheless  continue  to  be  operated  by  not  more  than 
twenty  men  until  all  of  the  pillars  are  drawn.^^^ 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  43 

By  the  mine  law  of  1880  new  mines,  if  less  than  two  hun- 
dred feet  deep,  were  allowed  one  year  to  provide  a  second 
outlet  and  two  years  if  they  exceeded  that  depth.  But  not 
more  than  twenty  men  might  be  employed  at  one  time  until 
the  law  was  fully  complied  with.^^^  The  time  allowed  for 
constructing  outlets  in  mines  over  two  hundred  feet  in  depth 
was  extended  to  three  years  in  1890;^^^  in  1897  it  was  reduced 
to  one  year  for  all  mines,  and  it  was  further  provided  that 
no  mine  should  he  operated  after  the  expiration  of  this  pe- 
riod until  brought  into  conformity  with  the  law.^®^ 

SIGNALING 

The  requirement  of  "suitable  means"  for  signaling  be- 
tween the  top  and  the  bottom  of  the  hoisting  shaft  or  slope 
was  first  made  in  the  mine  law  of  1874.^^*  By  the  law  of  1880 
the  owner  or  agent  of  any  coal  mine  operated  by  shaft  or 
slope  is  required,  in  all  cases  where  the  human  voice  cannot 
be  distinctly  heard,  to  provide  a  metal  speaking  tube  or  other 
means  whereby  a  conversation  may  be  carried  on  between  the 
bottom  and  top  of  the  shaft.^^^  This  provision  is  still  es- 
sentially the  same.^^^  In  practice,  however,  signaling  is  done 
by  a  code  of  bells,  and  a  man  is  usually  stationed  at  the  bot- 
tom of  the  shaft  to  ''bell  off"  the  cages. 

SAFE  GUARDS   ON   HOISTING  MACHINERY 

Legislation  upon  this  subject  began  with  the  mine  law  of 
1874  which  required  the  operator  to  "provide  safe  means  of 
hoisting  and  lowering  persons  at  the  mines,  with  sufficient 
cover  overhead  on  every  box  or  carriage  used  for  hoisting 
purposes  ".^^'^  Under  the  provisions  of  this  act.  County  Mine 
Inspectors  endeavored  with  indifferent  success  to  have  hoist- 
ing cages  hooded  and  brakes  placed  on  hoisting  drums,  and  to 
see  that  hoisting  cables  were  securely  fastened.^^^ 

The  County  Inspectors  had  been  hampered  in  their  efforts 
to  secure  safety  devices  by  the  vagueness  of  the  law.  The 
mines  and  mining  aet  of  1880  was  more  specific.    It  required 


Of   THE 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


44  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

overhead  covers  on  all  hoisting  cages,  an  approved  safety  gate 
at  the  top  of  every  shaft,  an  adequate  brake  on  every  hoisting 
drum,  an  approved  safety  spring  at  the  top  of  every  slope, 
and  a  trail  on  every  car  used  on  a  slope  (to  stop  the  car  in 
case  of  accident) — all  of  said  appliances  to  be  subject  to  the 
approval  of  the  (State)  Inspector.  It  limited  the  number  of 
persons  who  might  be  carried  on  the  same  cage  at  one  trip 
to  ten  (or  a  less  number  at  the  discretion  of  the  Inspector), 
and  it  forbade  the  dangerous  practice  of  riding  on  loaded 
cages  or  cars  in  shafts  or  slopes. ^^® 

The  act  of  1884  added  to  the  foregoing  requirements  an 
approved  safety  catch  on  all  carriages  used  for  hoisting  or 
lowering  persons.  The  requirement  of  a  trail  on  every  car 
was  changed  by  the  same  act  to  one  on  every  train  of  cars 
used  on  a  slope. ^'^'^  Finally,  the  conductor  in  charge  of  a  train 
was  excepted  from  the  prohibition  against  riding  out  of  a 
mine  on  a  loaded  car.^^^  This  last  mentioned  provision  was 
made  necessary  by  the  practice  of  the  mines.  Cars  are  com- 
monly hauled  up  a  slope  in  trains,  or  '^trips'',  of  eight  or 
ten,  and  a  conductor  is  invariably  sent  with  each  trip.  Even 
under  the  preceding  statute,  the  Supreme  Court  had  held  that 
the  prohibition  did  not  apply  to  a  conductor  whose  duty  re- 
quired him  to  ride  upon  a  train.^'^^ 

There  has  been  no  legislation  in  Iowa  respecting  hoisting 
ways  or  appliances  since  1884.  Our  statutes  are  silent  on 
many  points  now  specifically  provided  for  in  other  States. 
There  is  no  requirement  that  the  hoisting  cable  shall  be  of 
metal,  or  that  it  shall  be  long  enough  to  leave  a  part  always 
upon  the  drum,  or  that  the  drum  shall  be  provided  with  a 
flange,  or  the  hoisting  engine  with  a  depth  indicator,  or  the 
cage  with  hand  holds,  or  that  there  shall  be  a  passageway 
at  the  bottom  of  the  shaft  so  that  men  may  cross  from  one 
side  to  the  other  without  stepping  upon  the  cage.  Such  safe- 
guards are  voluntarily  provided  in  many  mines.  The  present 
law  appears  to  be  pretty  fully  complied  with.  But  the  loss  of 
life  and  limb  in  the  hoisting  shafts  has  not  ceased.^"^^ 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  45 


HOISTING   ENGINEERS 


The  mine  law  of  1880  provided  that  "No  owner  or  agent 
of  any  coal  mine  ....  shall  knowingly  place  in  charge 
of  any  [hoisting]  engine  ....  any  but  experienced, 
competent  and  sober  engineers;  and  no  engineer  in  charge 
of  any  such  engine  shall  allow  any  person,  except  such  as 
may  be  deputed  for  that  purpose  by  the  owner  or  agent,  to 
interfere  with  it,  or  any  part  of  the  machinery  ".^'^*  Li  the 
Code  of  1897  all  engines  used  in  or  about  the  operation  of 
mines  were  brought  within  the  requirements  of  the  law,^"^^  In 
1900  every  hoisting  engineer  was  required  to  have  a  cer- 
tificate of  competency,  to  be  issued  by  the  State  Board  of  Ex- 
aminers upon  examination  or  proof  of  continuous  and  suc- 
cessful experience  for  the  four  years  next  preceding  the  ap- 
ph cation  for  a  certificate.^'^^ 

This  law  appears  to  have  given  general  satisfaction.  A 
careless  or  incompetent  engineer  imperils  the  life  of  every 
man  working  at  the  mine.  Certification  is  probably  the  best 
means  thus  far  tried  to  insure  competency. 

MINE    TIMBERING 

Custom  makes  the  miner  responsible  for  the  care  of  his 
own  working  place,  including  the  setting  of  props  to  secure 
the  roof.  This  custom  was  recognized  in  the  mine  law  of 
1880  by  making  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  miner  "to  neglect 
or  refuse  to  securely  prop  or  support  the  roof  and  entries  un- 
der his  control".  At  the  same  time  it  was  made  the  duty  of 
the  mine  operator  to  keep  a  sufficient  supply  of  timber  to  be 
used  as  props  and  to  send  down  such  props  when  called  for.^"'' 
It  was  formerly  the  practice  for  the  miners  to  receive  their 
props  at  the  foot  of  the  shaft,  but  in  1897  the  operators  were 
required  to  deliver  them  to  the  place  where  needed. ^"^^  There 
is  no  statute  governing  the  timbering  of  main  entrances  and 
haulage  ways,  but  it  is  the  operator's  duty  under  the  com- 
mon law  to  use  reasonable  care  to  maintain  them  in  a  safe 
condition.^'^^ 


46  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

MINE  VENTILATION 

The  first  ''Act  for  the  Protection  of  the  Life  and  Health 
of  Miners'*  (1872)  empowered  the  County  Mine  Inspector, 
''when  he  shall  be  satisfied  of  the  prevalence  of  choke-damps 
(carbonic  acid  gas)  or  fire-damps  (light  carbureted  hydrogen 
gas)",  in  any  mine,  to  "determine  the  number  and  capacity 
of  additional  entrances  or  shafts,  or  other  means  necessary 
for  the  proper  ventilation"  of  the  mine.^^°  In  these  respects 
the  law  of  1874  was  the  same  as  that  of  1872.^^^ 

The  means  of  ventilation  in  use  in  Iowa  coal  mines  in  1872 
were  extremely  crude.  Many  small  local  banks,  operated 
chiefly  in  the  winter  season,  depended  wholly  on  natural  ven- 
tilation. Others  had  only  an  old  stove  placed  at  the  bottom 
of  the  ventilating  shaft  to  create  a  draught.  Sometimes  the 
stove  was  replaced  by  a  pot  containing  a  handful  of  fire.  Only 
the  larger  mines  had  regular  furnaces.  Pans  were  almost 
unknown.  The  methods  of  distributing  air  were  as  inefficient 
as  the  supply  was  inadequate.  It  is  not  surprising  to  be  told 
that  men  often  worked  where  there  was  no  hint  of  an  air  cur- 
rent and  where  a  lamp  could  not  be  kept  burning.^^^ 

The  County  Inspectors  did  something  to  improve  these 
conditions.  But  their  powers  were  too  limited  and  the  law 
too  vague  to  permit  them  to  accomplish  much.  The  act  of 
1880  was  not  much  more  specific.  It  simply  required  the  State 
Mine  Inspector  ' '  to  see  that  all  coal  mines  are  well  and  prop- 
erly ventilated  and  that  such  quantities  of  air  are  supplied 
to  the  miners  at  their  several  places  of  working  .... 
as  is  requisite  for  their  health  and  safety.  "^^^  This  pro- 
vision was  found  very  difficult  of  enforcement.  When  the 
Inspector  decided  that  the  ventilation  in  any  mine  was  de- 
ficient, the  operator  could  usually  induce  some  of  his  em- 
ployees to  swear  to  the  contrary,  whereupon  the  court  would 
refuse  to  grant  the  injunction  prayed  for  by  the  Inspector. 
The  first  State  Inspector  accordingly  asked,  as  the  result  of 
two  years'  experience,  that  the  volume  of  air  to  be  supplied 
in  mines  be  specified  by  law.^^* 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  47 

In  accordance  with  this  recommendation,  the  mines  and 
mining  act  of  1884  ordered  that  there  shall  be  supplied  in 
every  coal  mine  not  less  than  one  hundred  cubic  feet  of  air 
per  minute  for  each  person  and  five  hundred  cubic  feet  for 
each  horse  or  mule  employed  in  such  mine.^*^  This  amount 
has  never  been  changed.  It  appears  to  be  ample  for  non- 
gaseous mines,  such  as  those  in  Iowa. 

All  mines  within  the  provisions  of  the  mine  law  (mines 
operated  by  slope  or  drift  and  employing  not  more  than  five 
persons  are  excepted)  must  be  provided  with  artificial  means 
for  producing  ventilation,  such  as  exhaust  or  forcing  fans, 
furnaces,  or  exhaust  steam,  or  other  contrivances  of  such 
capacity  and  power  as  to  produce  and  maintain  an  abundant 
supply  of  air  for  all  the  requirements  of  the  persons  employed 
in  the  mine.^^^  Of  the  several  modes  of  ventilation  enumerated 
in  the  law,  the  furnace  was  long  the  most  popular.  A  fur- 
nace is  easy  to  install,  and  for  a  small  mine  gives  fairly 
good  results.  But  as  the  underground  workings  become  more 
extensive  it  is  likely  to  prove  unsatisfactory,  particularly  in 
the  summer  months.^^'^  Its  use  in  this  State  is  now  prin- 
cipally confined  to  mines  operated  by  slope  or  drift  where 
steam  power  is  not  employed. 

Ventilating  fans  were  introduced  in  Iowa  in  the  early 
eighties — only  twenty-four  were  in  operation  in  1883.^^^  Ex- 
perience soon  demonstrated  the  superiority  of  the  new  de- 
vice for  shallow  mines  like  those  of  Iowa.  A  fan  costs  rather 
more  to  install  than  a  furnace,  but  it  is  less  expensive  to 
operate  where  steam  power  is  available.  Fans  are,  conse- 
quently, in  use  at  practically  all  the  more  important  mines 
of  the  State. 

Natural  ventilation,  finally,  is  still  relied  on  at  some  small 
country  banks,  operated  chiefly  in  the  winter  months,  when 
the  difference  in  temperature  between  the  mine  air  and  the 
external  atmosphere  is  greatest. 

Table  III  illustrates  the  methods  of  ventilation  employed 
in  the  coal  mines  of  Iowa  in  1906.^^® 


48  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

TABLE   III 

MARKET  OF   MINE 
METHOD    OF    VENTILATION  SHIPPING  x^^.t  BOTH 

liOCAli 

Fan    117  30  147 

Furnace 38  89  127 

Natural    1  17  18 

Steam  jet 9  5  14 

Grate   5  5 

Stove    2  2 

Fire  in  Bucket 1  1 

Total  number  of  Mines 165  149  314 

Tlie  proper  distribution  of  air  in  the  mine  is  quite  as 
important  as  the  total  volume  supplied,  and  so  the  mining 
laws  in  many  States  contain  elaborate  provisions  designed 
to  secure  this  object.  Those  of  Iowa  are  less  specific.  The 
law  of  1884  requires  that  the  air  "shall  be  ...  .  cir-« 
culated  throughout  the  mine  in  such  manner  as  to  dilute, 
render  harmless,  and  expel  the  noxious  and  poisonous  gases 
from  each  and  every  working  place  in  the  mine."  Such  a 
mandate  sounds  well,  but  it  provides  no  definite  test  of  ade- 
quate ventilation.  For  years  after  this  provision  had  been 
placed  upon  the  statute  books,  men  were  required  to  work 
a  hundred  feet  or  more  ahead  of  the  air  current  and  the  In- 
spector's power  to  prevent  such  a  practice  remained  a  mat- 
ter of  doubt.  To  remedy  this  condition  it  was  enacted  in 
1898  that  unless  by  written  permission  of  the  Inspector,  the 
air  current  shall  never  be  at  a  greater  distance  than  sixty 
feet  from  the  working  face,  except  in  making  cross  cuts  in 
entries  for  an  air  course,  when  the  distance  shall  not  exceed 
seventy  feet.^^^ 

The  Iowa  law  is  still  silent  respecting  "  splits  ",^^^  "  stop- 
pings ",^^^  doors,  the  location  of  stables  on  airways,  and  other 
points  covered  by  the  statutes  in  several  of  the  great  coal- 
mining States.  It  is  weak  also  in  not  specifying  where  the 
volume  of  air  supplied  to  the  mine  shall  be  measured.  The 
practice  of  some  Inspectors  is  to  measure  the  current  at  the 
foot  of  the  downcast.    Plainly  an  ample  current  at  this  point 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  49 

does  not  insure  a  plentiful  supply  of  pure  air  at  the  working 
face.  There  may  be  serious  leakage  through  doors  and  stop- 
pings. Parts  of  the  air  course  may  be  choked  with  debris. 
Ventilation  may  be  good  in  one  portion  of  the  mine  and  de- 
ficient in  another.  In  some  mines  allowance  is  made  for  loss 
by  maintaining  a  volume  at  the  downcast  in  excess  of  legal 
requirements.  But  measurement  of  the  current  at  the  work- 
ing face  and  at  the  upcast  would  appear  necessary  to  make 
sure  of  adequate  circulation  in  all  cases. 

The  ventilation  in  a  majority  of  the  coal  mines  of  Iowa 
is  now  fairly  satisfactory.  The  double  entry  system  of  min- 
ing— so  much  more  favorable  than  single  entry  to  the  main- 
tenance of  an  air  current — has  long  been  in  general  use.  In 
recent  years  the  practice  of  dividing  the  air  current  into 
separate  ''splits"  for  different  portions  of  a  large  mine  has 
become  common.  Many  overcasts  have  been  constructed  to 
carry  the  air  across  haulage  ways,  obviating  an  important 
source  of  leakage.  Thus  the  grounds  of  serious  complaint 
on  the  score  of  ventilation,  in  most  of  the  larger  mines  at 
least,  have  been  reduced  to  two — defective  stoppings  and  in- 
attention to  keeping  the  air  courses  clear  of  obstructions. 
The  conditions  in  the  small  mines  are  not  so  satisfactory.^^^ 

ILI.UMINANTS  IN  COAL  MINES 

Owing  to  the  complete  absence  of  explosive  gases,  safety- 
lamps  are  nowhere  required  in  Iowa  mines.  Legislation  upon 
this  subject  has  related  only  to  the  quality  of  illuminants  used. 
The  common  miner's  lamp  is  a  smoky  affair  at  best,  but  its 
bad  qualities  are  vastly  increased  by  the  use  of  inferior  grades 
of  oil.  Some  years  ago  a  mixture  of  cotton  seed  oil  and 
kerosene  was  put  upon  the  market  in  place  of  the  lard  oil 
formerly  used.  The  adulterated  product  was  less  expensive 
to  the  miner  and  more  profitable  to  the  company  store  than 
pure  oil.  Hence  its  use  rapidly  increased.  But  it  was  soon 
found  that  the  fumes  of  kerosene  are  highly  offensive  and 
unwholesome  in  the  close  air  of  a  coal  pit.^^*    Accordingly  the 


50  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

State  Mine  Inspectors  recommended  and  the  legislature  passed 
an  act  (1896)  prohibiting  the  use  of  anything  but  pure  ani- 
mal or  vegetable  oil,  or  electric  lights  (paraflSne  was  added 
in  1897)^^^  for  illumination  in  coal  mines.  The  Mine  In- 
spectors were  required  to  take  samples  of  all  suspected  oils 
and  to  have  the  same  tested  in  accordance  with  regulations 
prescribed  by  the  State  Board  of  Health.^^s  In  1898  this 
last  provision  was  repealed  and  it  was  made  the  duty  of  each 
Inspector  of  Petroleum  Products,  appointed  by  the  State 
Board  of  Health,  to  test  ''all  oil  offered  for  sale,  sold  or  used 
for  illuminating  purposes  in  coal  mines,"  and  to  brand  each 
barrel  or  other  container  of  such  oil,  over  his  own  official 
signature,  and  the  date  of  inspection,  with  the  words,  ''Ap- 
proved," or  "Rejected  for  illuminating  coal  mines. "^^'^  This 
law  seems  to  have  worked  well ;  and  complaints  of  adulterated 
and  inferior  oils  have  now  practically  ceased, 

SHOT  FIRING 

The  greater  part  of  the  coal  mined  in  Iowa  is  obtained  by 
blasting,  or  "shooting,"  as  it  is  termed  in  the  parlance  of 
the  mines.  It  was  formerly  the  custom  for  each  miner  to 
drill  the  holes,  put  in  the  charges,  and  fire  the  shots  in  his 
own  room,  with  little  or  no  supervision.  Many  of  the  miners 
in  their  anxiety  to  secure  as  much  coal  in  as  short  a  time 
as  possible  neglected  the  most  ordinary  precautions.  Holes 
were  negligently  placed;  shots  were  habitually  overcharged; 
and  slack  and  coal  dust  were  commonly  used  for  tamping. 
The  result  of  these  methods  was  a  series  of  disastrous  ex- 
plosions, culminating  in  the  Lost  Creek  catastrophe  of  Jan- 
uary 24,  1902. — ^the  most  fatal  in  the  history  of  Iowa  coal 
mining.^^^ 

The  fearful  loss  of  life  in  these  explosions  at  last  aroused 
public  opinion  to  the  need  of  doing  something  to  prevent 
their  recurrence.  After  the  Lost  Creek  disaster  a  commis- 
sion was  appointed  consisting  of  two  miners,  two  operators, 
and  one  mine  Inspector,  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  mine 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  51 

explosions  in  Iowa  and  the  means  of  preventing  them.  The 
commission  organized  February  17,  1902,  and  finished  its 
labors  before  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature.^^^ 

It  recommended  four  additions  to  the  mine  law:  That 
shot  examiners,  to  be  certificated  by  the  District  Inspector, 
be  appointed  in  all  mines  where  coal  is  blasted  from  the  solid ; 
that  the  operator  be  required  to  sprinkle  all  entries  so  as  to 
rid  the  air  of  dust;  that  the  use  of  anything  but  sand,  soil 
or  clay  for  tamping  shots  be  prohibited ;  and  that  it  be  made 
unlawful  to  recharge  any  shot  that  had  once  blown  the  tamp- 
ing. A  minority  report  asked  for  the  further  enactment  that 
all  shots  be  fired  by  men  employed  for  that  purpose,  and 
that  no  employees  except  the  shot  firers  be  allowed  in  the 
mine  at  firing  time.  Of  the  commission's  recommendations, 
the  legislature  saw  fit  to  adopt  only  the  first.  The  shot  ex- 
aminers law  of  1902  is  as  follows: 

^'In  all  mines,  where  the  coal  is  blasted  from  the  solid, 
competent  persons  shall  be  employed  to  examine  all  shots, 
before  they  are  charged.  Said  examiners  to  have  the  power 
to  prohibit  the  charging  and  firing  of  any  shot  which,  in  their 
judgment,  is  unsafe.  Before  entering  upon  the  discharge  of 
their  duties  said  examiners  shall  give  proof  of  their  compe- 
tency to  the  State  Mine  Inspector  of  the  district  in  which 
the  mine,  where  they  are  employed,  is  located,  and  said  in- 
spector shall  certify  to  the  operator  of  each  mine  the  persons 
who  have  given  proof  of  their  competency  to  act  in  the  capac- 
ity of  shot  examiners.  The  State  Mine  Inspector  to  have 
the  power  to  ...  .  revoke  the  permission  granted, 
should  it  appear  that  a  shot  examiner  is  negligent,  or  care- 
less in  the  performance  of  his  work."-^*^ 

Inspection  alone  is  sufficient  to  prevent  many  of  the  care- 
less practices  formerly  common.  But  with  all  precautions, 
blasting  with  common  black  powder  remains  a  dangerous 
operation.  Accordingly  the  United  Mine  Workers  have  made 
persistent  efforts  to  secure  the  enactment  of  a  shot  firing  law 
similar  to  that  recommended  in  the  minority  report  of  the 


52  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Goal  Mine  Explosions  Commission,  which  would  at  least  limit 
the  loss  of  life  in  case  of  disaster.  Bills  for  such  a  law  have 
been  introduced  at  several  sessions  of  the  legislature  but  have 
always  been  defeated  either  in  committee  or  upon  the  floor.^^^ 
Two  objections  were  urged  against  the  proposed  law:  That 
it  would  increase  the  expenses  of  the  operator;  and  that  the 
system  of  firing  once  a  day  would  diminish  the  output  of 
coal  per  man.  Though  baffled  in  the  legislature,  the  mine 
workers  have  partly  gained  their  object  through  joint  agree- 
ment with  the  Iowa  Coal  Operators'  Association.^^^  In  most 
of  the  mines  of  this  State  shot  firers  are  now  emj3loyed  at 
the  expense  of  the  miners,  and  shots  are  fired  only  at  the 
close  of  the  working  day  when  all  of  the  men,  except  the  shot 
firers,  are  out  of  the  mine.  As  a  rule  the  same  men  act  both 
as  shot  examiners  and  as  shot  firers  and  the  expense  is 
shared  equally  between  the  miners  and  operators.  Electrical 
firing  devices,  operated  from  the  surface,  are  used  in  some 
of  the  largest  mines  in  the  State. 

In  practice  it  has  not  been  found  that  once-a-day  firing  re- 
duces the  output,  except  in  under-developed  mines,  where 
the  men  work  two  in  a  room.  Any  loss  which  may  be  occa- 
sioned in  this  way  is  more  than  offset  by  the  improvement 
in  ventilation  which  the  new  system  has  brought  about.  When 
mid-day  firing  was  in  vogue  the  air  current  at  many  of  the 
mines  was  insufficient  to  clear  the  rooms  and  entrances  of 
powder  smoke  until  late  in  the  afternoon.  Men  who  were 
forced  to  inhale  these  fumes,  containing  as  they  do  a  high 
percentage  of  carbon  monoxide  and  other  poisonous  gases, 
often  suffered  from  chronic  headache,  nausea,  and  loss  of  ap- 
petite, sometimes  ending  in  serious  illness.  With  the  adop- 
tion of  once-a-day  firing  this  cause  of  complaint  has  dis- 
appeared.^^^ 

The  Commission's  recommendation  as  to  tamping  material 
has  likewise  been  adopted  in  the  joint  agreement  of  miners 
and  operators,  and  the  operator  is  required  to  furnish  the 
"sand,  soil  or  clay"  at  convenient  places. 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  53 

Still  another  recommendation  of  the  Commission,  ignored 
by  the  legislature  but  included  in  the  joint  agreement,  is  to 
the  effect  that  the  miner  shall  keep  his  working  place,  and 
the  operator  the  entries,  as  free  from  dust  as  practicable,  and 
that  the  entries  shall  be  sprinkled  as  often  as  necessary  to 
keep  them  in  damp  condition.  The  operations  of  mining 
give  rise  to  clouds  of  finely-divided  coal-dust  which  is  highly 
inflammable  and,  under  favorable  conditions,  even  explosive.^'^'^ 
Dust  has  been  a  large  factor  in  all  the  serious  mine  explo- 
sions in  Iowa.  It  is  generally  believed  that  watering  the 
working  face  and  haulage  ways,  by  clearing  the  air  of  dust 
particles,  tends  to  lessen  the  probability  of  such  explosions. 

CONVEYANCE  AND   STORAGE  OF  EXPLOSIVES 

Until  a  few  years  ago  the  miners  usually  received  their 
individual  kegs  of  powder  at  the  top  of  the  shaft  and  them- 
selves conveyed  it  to  their  respective  working  places.  About 
1901  a  majority  of  the  mine  operators,  at  the  miners'  request, 
undertook  to  deliver  the  powder  where  needed  at  their  own 
expense.  To  facilitate  delivery  underground  storage  rooms 
were  established,  where  was  kept  one  or  two  days'  supply 
for  the  entire  mine.  The  powder  was  hauled  from  the  foot 
of  the  shaft  to  the  storage  room  in  large  quantities,  often  a 
thousand  pounds  or  more  in  a  single  car.^^^ 

The  State  Mine  Inspectors  early  directed  the  attention  of 
the  legislature  to  the  dangers  of  the  above  described  prac- 
tices, but  no  action  was  taken  for  several  years.  Finally  in 
1907,  the  United  Mine  Workers  secured  the  enactment  of  a 
law  to  regulate  the  transportation  and  storage  of  explosives 
in  coal  mines.  This  law  requires  that  the  transportation  and 
delivery  of  all  explosives  in  coal  mines  shall  be  done  by  the 
operator  or  by  men  employed  by  him  for  that  purpose,  and 
it  forbids  the  conveyance  by  electricaP^^  process,  of  powder 
or  other  explosives  into  any  coal  mine  where  twenty  or  more 
persons  are  employed  until  after  the  miners  and  other  em- 
ployees have  completed  their  work  and  have  left  the  mine. 


54  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

No  explosive  can  be  stored  in  any  coal  mine.  But  each  miner 
may  have  in  his  own  possession  two  twenty-five  pound  kegs 
of  powder,  and  other  explosives  sufficient  for  one  day's  use.^^'^ 
This  statute  was  the  result  of  a  compromise.  The  bill,  as 
it  was  introduced  and  as  it  passed  the  Senate,  prohibited  the 
conveyance  of  explosives  in  coal  mines  during  working  hours 
by  any  process  whatever.  The  House  substitute  simply  for- 
bade such  conveyance  by  electrical  or  mechanical  process.  The 
words  ''or  mechanical"  were  struck  out  by  a  Senate  amend- 
ment to  the  House  substitute.^*^^ 

MINE  FOREMEN 

The  mine  foreman,  or  "pit  boss"  as  he  is  more  familiarly 
called,  occupies  a  position  of  grave  responsibility.  The  Su- 
perintendent may  be  and  sometimes  is  without  practical  ex- 
perience or  knowledge  of  mining  operations.  In  any  case, 
his  attention  is  largely  absorbed  in  business  transactions, 
while  the  details  of  mine  management  are  left  to  the  foreman. 
Upon  the  skill,  judgment,  and  fidelity  of  the  latter  largely 
depend  both  the  profitableness  and  the  safety  of  the  mine. 

Laws  to  prevent  the  employment  of  incomjoetent  mine 
foremen  have  been  enacted  in  many  States.  Such  a  law  was 
recommended  by  the  Iowa  Mine  Inspectors  as  far  back  as 
1891,209  but  it  was  not  until  1900  that  the  United  Mine 
Workers  secured  its  enactment.  The  act  then  passed  makes 
it  unlawful  for  any  person  to  discharge  any  of  the  duties  of 
mine  foreman,  at  any  coal  mine  whose  daily  output  exceeds 
twenty-five  tons,  unless  he  holds  a  certificate  of  competency 
issued  by  the  Board  of  Examiners  for  State  Mine  Inspec- 
tors. Certificates  can  be  granted  only  upon  successful  pas- 
sage of  an  oral  or  written  examination  or  upon  proof  of 
continuous  employment  as  mine  foreman  for  the  four  years 
immediately  preceding  the  examination.^^*^  This  law  has  given 
general  satisfaction.  It  has  led  to  the  employment  of  a  su- 
perior type  of  mine  foremen,  and  it  has  encouraged  ambitious 
miners  to  add  theoretic  knowledge  to  their  practical  expe- 
rience.^^^ 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  55 

FIRST   AID  TO  INJURED 

The  existing  joint  agreement  of  Iowa  miners  and  operators 
requires  the  operator  to  ''keep  sufficient  blankets,  oils,  band- 
ages, etc.,  and  suitable  conveyance  or  stretchers  readily  avail- 
able at  each  mine  to  properly  care  for  and  convey  injured 
persons  to  their  homes  after  an  accident."  A  similar  re- 
quirement would  be  a  very  desirable  addition  to  the  present 
mine  law. 

WASH   ROOMS 

Another  desirable  provision  for  the  health  and  comfort 
of  miners  is  a  wash  room  at  the  mouth  of  the  mine.  Coal 
mining  is  an  excessively  dirty  occupation.  "A  man  works 
eight  hours,  and  spends  another  hour  cleaning  up."  Most 
Iowa  mines  have  no  toilet  arrangements  whatever;  the  men 
go  to  their  homes  just  as  they  come  from  the  pit.  The  av- 
erage miner's  cabin  is  itself  nearly  destitute  of  conveniences: 
even  water  often  is  difficult  to  get.  Under  such  circumstances 
cleanliness  in  the  little  home  becomes  almost  impossible.  A 
place  where  the  men  might  wash  and  change  their  clothing 
could  be  provided  at  every  mine  at  no  great  expense  and 
would  do  much  to  alleviate  one  of  the  most  disagreeable  fea- 
tures of  coal  raining. 

PROHIBITION  OF  DANGEROUS  ACTS 

The  mine  act  of  1874  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  miner, 
workman  or  other  person  knowingly  to  injure  or  destroy  any 
water-gauge,  barometer,  air-course,  or  brattice,  or  obstruct 
or  throw  open  any  air- ways,  or  carry  lighted  lamps  or  matches 
into  places  that  are  worked  by  the  light  of  safety-lamps,  or 
disturb  any  part  of  the  hoisting  machinery,  or  open  a  door 
in  the  mine  and  neglect  or  refuse  to  have  it  closed  again,  or 
to  enter  a  mine  against  caution,  or  disobey  any  order  given 
in  pursuance  of  the  law,  or  do  any  willful  act  whereby  the 
lives  and  health  of  persons  working  in  the  mine  or  the  se- 
curity of  the  mine,  or  the  machinery  thereof,  would  be  en- 
dangered.^^^ 


56  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  mines  and  mining  act  of  1880  omitted  the  provisions 
relating  to  safety  lamps,  to  water-gauges  and  barometer,  and 
to  entering  a  mine  against  caution.  Of  these  regulations 
the  first  is  unnecessary  in  Iowa  mines  and  the  second  is  prob- 
ably covered  by  the  prohibition  against  disturbing  any  part 
of  the  machinery,  contained  in  the  act  of  1880.  The  same 
act  made  it  a  misdemeanor  for  an  employee  to  disobey  an 
order  of  the  superintendent  relating  to  the  security  of  the 
part  of  the  mine  under  the  charge  or  control  of  such  em- 
ployee.^^^  No  material  change  has  been  made  in  the  list  of 
prohibited  acts  since  1880.^^* 

ENFOECEMENT   OF   SAFETY   KEQUIREMENTS 
inspector's  POWER  OF  ENFORCEMENT 

The  County  Mine  Inspectors  appointed  under  the  law  of 
1872  were  without  power  to  enforce  compliance  with  any 
recommendations  they  might  make  to  mine  operators.  This 
power  was  conferred  by  the  law  of  1874  which  authorized  the 
Inspector  to  proceed  by  injunction  against  any  operator  who 
should  neglect  or  refuse  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the 
mine  act  for  thirty  days  after  written  notice  of  defects  should 
have  been  given  by  the  Inspector.  The  court  might,  if  suffi- 
cient cause  appeared  after  hearing  both  parties  to  the  petition, 
prohibit  the  further  working  of  the  mine  in  question  until  the 
same  should  have  been  made  safe,  and  the  provisions  of  the 
law  complied  with.^^^ 

The  mines  and  mining  act  of  1880  shortened  the  required 
notice  to  twenty  days  and  empowered  any  court  of  competent 
jurisdiction,  in  session  or  vacation,  on  application  of  the  State 
Inspector  to  enjoin  the  operator  from  working  an  unsafe 
mine  with  more  than  ten  miners  at  once  until  made  to  con- 
form with  the  law.  This  remedy  was  cumulative  and  did  not 
take  the  place  of  or  affect  any  of  the  proceedings  authorized 
by  law  for  the  matter  complained  of.^^^.  In  1888  it  was  for- 
bidden to  operate  a  mine  closed  by  such  injunction  ''with 
more  persons  at  once  than  are  necessary  to  make  the  im- 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  57 

provements  needed ".^^"^  The  proviso,  "save  as  may  be  re- 
quired to  prevent  waste",  was  added  in  the  Code  of  1897.  As 
thus  amended  the  injunction  provision  of  1880  is  still  in 
force.^^*^ 

Enforcement  of  the  mine  law  by  injunction  was  not  found 
altogether  satisfactory  in  practice.  Courts  are  proverbially 
slow;  and  unwholesome  or  dangerous  conditions  were  some- 
times allowed  to  continue  for  months  before  a  restraining 
order  was  issued  and  enforced.^^®  To  provide  a  speedier 
remedy  it  was  enacted  in  1888  that  "whenever  the  Inspector 
shall  find  men  working  without  sufficient  air  or  under  any 
unsafe  conditions  he  shall  first  give  the  Operator  or  his  agent 
a  reasonable  Notice  to  rectify  the  same  and  upon  a  refusal  or 
neglect  to  do  so  the  Inspector  may  himself  order  them  our, 
until  said  Portion  of  said  Mine  shall  be  put  in  proper  condi- 
tion ".^^°  With  some  verbal  changes,  the  law  is  still  the 
same.^^^ 

PENALTIES  FOR  VIOIiATION  OF  THE  MINE  LAW 

Besides  penalties  for  infraction  of  particular  sections, 
the  mine  act  of  1884  declares  that  "Any  person  willfully  neg- 
lecting or  refusing  to  comply  with  the  provisions  of  this  act 
when  notified  by  the  mine  inspector  to  comply  with  such  pro- 
visions, shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon 
conviction  thereof  shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding 
five  hundred  dollars,  or  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not 
exceeding  six  months,  except  when  different  penalties  are 
herein  provided.  "^^^  By  the  Code  of  1897  the  maximum  jail 
sentence  is  reduced  to  sixty  days,  the  possible  fine  remaining 
as  before.  This  penalty  attaches  to  any  violation  of  the  mine 
law  by  a  mine  owner  or  operator,  irrespective  of  notice  by 
the  InsjDector.-^^  The  mine  acts  passed  since  the  compilation 
of  the  Code  carry  various  penalties  for  their  infraction. 

lilABHilTY  FOR  DAMAGES 

The  first  Iowa  mine  law,  that  of  1872,  made  the  mine 
operator  liable  in  full  damages  for  any  injury  resulting  from 


58  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

his  refusal  or  neglect  to  provide  such  means  as  the  County 
Inspector  should  in  writing  notify  the  operator  to  be  necessary 
to  protect  the  life  or  health  of  his  employees.^^^  By  the  law 
of  1874  liability  attached  to  the  operator  for  any  injury  result- 
ing from  neglect  or  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 
mine  law.^^^  This  provision  was  omitted  in  the  mine  law  of 
1880,  but  was  re-enacted  by  that  of  1884.226  The  Code  of  1897 
declares  that  in  case  an  injury  happens  to  those  engaged  in 
work  because  of  failure  on  the  part  of  the  mine  owner  to 
provide  any  of  the  appliances  required  by  law  for  the  safety 
of  the  employees,  the  same  shall  be  held  culpable  negligence.^^f 
Even  in  the  absence  of  this  express  declaration,  the  violation 
of  a  statutory  provision  would  be  negligence  per  se,  and  an 
innocent  person  injured  thereby  would  be  entitled  to  civil  rem- 
edy by  way  of  damages. ^^^ 

EXCEPTION  OF  SMAI.L  MINES 

The  special  treatment  of  small  mines  was  begun  by  the 
law  of  1874  which  did  not  require,  though  it  permitted,  the 
County  Inspector  to  examine  mines  in  which  not  more  than 
ten  persons  were  employed.^^^  Coal  mines  employing  not 
more  than  fifteen  persons  at  one  time  were  excepted  from  all 
the  requirements  of  the  mine  law  of  1880,  but  upon  the  appli- 
cation of  the  proprietors  of,  or  miners  in,  any  such  mine  it 
became  the  State  Inspector's  duty  to  make  an  inspection  and 
direct  and  enforce  any  regulations  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  mine  law  that  he  might  deem  necessary  for  the 
safety  of  the  miners.^"^  This  exception  was  repealed  by  the 
General  Assembly  in  the  mine  law  of  1884.  But  some  of  the 
most  important  sections  of  that  law  apply  only  to  mines  oper- 
ated by  shaft  or  slope,  while  drift  or  slope  mines  where  not 
more  than  five  persons  are  employed,  are  expressly  excepted 
from  the  provision  relating  to  escape  shafts.^^^  So,  too,  mines 
which  have  a  daily  output  of  less  than  twenty-five  tons  are  not 
required  to  employ  certificated  foremen  or  hoisting  engin- 
eers.232 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  59 

REPORT  OF  ACCIDENTS  AT  MINES 

The  law  of  1874  required  the  operator  of  any  mine,  when- 
ever an  explosion  or  other  accident  causing  loss  of  life  or 
serious  bodily  injury  occurred  at  his  mine,  to  at  once  notify 
the  County  Inspector;  and  it  was  made  the  Inspector's  duty 
to  proceed  to  the  scene  of  the  accident  and  investigate  the 
cause  thereof,  and  take  such  measures  as  he  might  deem  neces- 
sary for  the  safety  of  the  men  employed  in  the  mine.  Notice 
of  fatal  accidents  must  likewise  be  given  to  the  County 
Coroner.^^^ 

In  the  mines  and  mining  act  of  1880  the  provision  relating 
to  serious  accidents  was  dropped  and  the  operator  was  merely 
required  to  report  loss  of  life  to  the  State  Inspector  and 
Coroner.  Another  section  of  the  act  required  the  Inspector, 
in  his  annual  (now  biennial)  report  to  the  Grovernor,  to  enu- 
merate all  accidents  occurring  in  or  about  the  mines  of  the 
State.^^*  This  discrepancy  was  remedied  by  the  mine  law  of 
1884  which  provides  that  "the  owner  or  agent  of  all  coal  mines 
shall  report  to  the  Inspector  all  accidents  to  miners,  in  and 
around  the  mines,  giving  cause  of  the  same;  such  report  to 
be  made  in  writing,  and  within  ten  days  from  the  time  any 
such  accidents  occur  ".^^^  The  law  now  requires  this  report 
to  be  made  "  forthwith  ".^^^^ 

Since  1880  it  has  been  the  duty  of  the  County  Coroner  to 
hold  an  inquest  upon  the  body  of  every  person  killed  in  or 
about  any  mine  and  to  inquire  carefully  into  the  cause  of 
death,  and  to  return  a  copy  of  the  verdict  and  all  testimony 
taken  at  the  inquest  to  the  Mine  Inspector.  No  person  hav- 
ing an  interest  in,  or  engaged  in  the  management  of,  or  em- 
ployed in,  the  mine  where  a  fatal  accident  occurs  is  qualified 
to  serve  on  the  jury  impaneled  on  the  inquest.^^'^ 

In  accordance  with  the  foregoing  provisions  from  twenty 
to  fifty  inquests  are  held  each  year.  The  jury  is  usually  com- 
posed of  non-experts,  and  is  excessively  timid  about  fixing 
responsibility  for  loss  of  life.  Their  verdict  commonly  throws 
little  light  upon  the  conditions  which  caused  the  fatality,  but 


60  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA  j 

records  instead  the  edifying  opinion  that ' '  the  said  occurrence 
was  purely  accidental ".^^^  j 

TABLE  IV  —  ACCIDENTS  TO  THE  COAL  MINES  OF  IOWA,   1888-1906  ^^® 


■a 

3 

a 

a  m 

NUMBER  KILLED  PER 
THOUSAND   EM- 
PLOYED 

NUMBER    ACCIDENTS 
PER    THOUSAND 
EMPLOYED 

NUMBER  MEN   KILL- 
ED  PER     MILLION 
TONS   COAL  MINED 

NUMBER  FATAL  AND 
SERIOUS  ACCIDENTS 
PER   MILLION  TONS 
COAL   MINED 

1888 

28 

118 

2.2 

9.45 

6.3 

26.60 

1889 

32 

105 

2.6 

8.48 

•  8.5 

28.27 

1890 

15 

98 

1.5 

10.1 

3.77 

25.12 

1891 

21 

87 

2.3 

8.3 

5.64 

23.4 

1892 

22 

69 

2.36 

7.4 

5.5 

17.25 

1893 

32 

84 

3 

8.0 

6.94 

18.22 

1894 

19 

47 

1.9 

4.6 

5.0 

12.43 

1895 

20 

62 

1.8 

5.6 

6.25 

19.3 

1896 

22 

71 

2 

6.2 

6.23 

20.1 

1897 

21 

75 

1.8 

6.4 

5.52 

19.74 

1898 

26 

67 

2.5 

6.4 

5.9 

15.20 

1899 

20 

46 

1.8 

4.2 

4 

9.3 

1900 

29 

73 

2.2 

5.6 

5.8 

14.6 

1901 

27 

78 

2 

6 

5 

12.5 

1902 

55 

134 

4.2 

10.3 

10 

24.36 

1903 

21 

79 

1.6 

6 

3.39 

11.13 

1904 

31 

115 

1.9 

7 

5 

18.55 

1905 

24 

124 

1.4 

7 

3.53 

18.23 

1906 

37 

153 

2.2 

9.1 

5.3 

21.85 

Av.  1888-1906 

26.42  88.68 

2.15 

7.23 

5.34 

17.92 

Av.  1888-1893 

25 

93.5 

2.38 

8.90 

6.12 

22.86 

Av.  1894-1897 

20.5 

63.75 

1.85 

5.74 

5.75 

17.89 

Av.  1898-1906 

30 

96.5 

2.16 

6.96 

4.86 

15.69 

Table  IV  shows  the  fatal  and  serious  accidents  reported 
by  the  State  Mine  Inspectors  from  1888  to  1906.  It  will  be 
observed  that  the  number  of  fatalities  and  injuries  per  thou- 
sand was  greatest  in  the  period  1888  to  1893,  that  it  fell  off 
in  the  years  1894  to  1897,  and  again  rose  in  the  third  period 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION 


61 


from  1898  to  1906.  The  period  1894  to  1897  was  one  of  cur- 
tailed coal  production  due  to  financial  depression.  The  lesser 
number  of  accidents  during  these  years  is  doubtless  to  be 
attributed  to  the  circumstance  that  the  mines  were  idle  a  large 
share  of  the  time.  Since  1898  there  has  been  a  steady  and 
rapid  increase  in  the  production  of  coal.  Not  only  have  more 
men  been  employed  but  they  have  worked  more  days  in  the 
year.  Hence  it  is  but  natural  that  more  accidents  should 
have  occurred.  The  number  of  men  killed  and  injured  per 
million  tons  of  coal  mined  affords  a  truer  index  of  safety, 
and  this  number  shows  a  gratifying  diminution  for  each  suc- 
cessive period.  But  for  the  Lost  Creek  disaster  of  1902,  which 
makes  that  year  quite  exceptional,  the  showing  for  the  third 
period  would  be  much  improved.  And  there  is  no  reason  to 
doubt  that,  if  statistics  were  available  for  the  earlier  years 
of  the  coal  mining  industry  in  the  State,  they  would  show  an 
even  heavier  proportional  loss  of  life  and  limb  than  the  period 
1888  to  1893. 


TABLE  V 


COMPAEATrra  LOSS  OF  LIFE  IN  COAL  MINES 


240 


1-9 
< 
O 
O 

Iowa 

1 
1898'^1906 

United  St&tes 

1898-1906 

Great  Britain 

1894-1906 

Beljnum 

1898-1906 

France 

1901-1905 

s  s  >^ 

|§s 

2.2 
3.22 
1.35 
1.02 
.91 


^   S 

1^  o  Q 
t3  g  « 

«  J  !3 

5.33 
5.92 
4.64 
6.19 
4.59 


From  the  table  of  comparative  loss  of  life,  it  appears  that 
the  fatality  in  the  coal  mines  of  Iowa  is  somewhat  lower  than 
the  average  for  the  United  States,  though  the  rate  per  thou- 
sand is  far  higher  than  in  most  European  countries.  The 
favorable  showing  as  compared  with  the  rest  of  the  Union 
is  probably  due  to  the  non-gaseous  character  of  Iowa  mines 


62  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

and  also  to  the  high  level  of  intelligence  among  the  miners 
of  this  State.  The  lower  mortality  in  European  mines  is 
attributed  to  rigorous  public  supervision  and  to  the  smaller 
daily  output  per  man.^^^ 

TABLE  VI  —  CAUSES  OF  COAL  MINE  ACCIDENTS  IN  IOWA,  1888-1906^*2 


5 


5  !? 


1  ^  I  §  g 

O  H  K  iJ  03 

2  "^  "  :3  £ 

Falls  of  roof  and  coal.      285  56.77  967  57.39 

Powder  explosions,  pre- 
mature and  defective 

shots.                                 64  12.74  209  12.4 

Mine  cars.                             40  7.96  230  13.65 

Cage,   shaft  or  hoisting 

apparatus.                         47  9.56  97  5.75 

Dust  explosions.                   37  7.57  72  4.27 

Miscellaneous  causes.           29  3.79  110  6.56 

All  causes.                           502  100  1685  100 

As  is  shown  by  Table  VI  almost  three-fifths  of  the  cas- 
ualties in  the  coal  mines  of  Iowa  are  due  to  falls  of  roof  and 
coal.  Moreover,  the  number  of  accidents  from  this  cause 
does  not  appear  to  be  diminishing.  In  the  year  1906  it  ap- 
pears that  64.9  per  cent  of  all  coal  mine  fatalities  in  the  State 
were  caused  by  falls  of  roof  and  coal,  as  compared  with  56.7 
per  cent  for  the  entire  period  1888  to  1906.  The  number  of 
deaths  from  this  cause  for  each  thousand  men  employed  aver- 
aged 1.24  for  the  entire  period;  for  1906  it  was  1.43.  This 
rate  is  very  little  less  than  the  average  for  the  United  States 
(1.7  in  1906) ;  but  it  is  three  times  as  great  as  in  France  or 
Belgium. 

Powder  explosions  were  responsible  for  more  than  one- 
eighth  of  all  deaths  and  injuries  in  Iowa  mines  during  the 
period  under  review.     There  is  good  ground  to  hope,  how- 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  63 

ever,  that  the  number  of  accidents  from  this  cause  will  be 
much  reduced  by  the  system  of  shot  firing  now  in  vogue. 

Gas  and  dust  explosions,  which  caused  eleven  per  cent  of 
all  coal  mine  fatalities  in  the  United  States  during  the  year 
1906,  were  responsible  for  less  than  eight  per  cent  of  those 
in  Iowa  for  the  nineteen  years,  1888-1906.  Of  the  thirty-seven 
deaths  from  this  cause,  twenty  occurred  in  the  single  catas- 
trophe of  Lost  Creek. 

More  than  one-sixth  of  the  fatalities  and  a  still  greater 
proportion  of  non-fatal  injuries  in  the  coal  mines  of  this  State 
are  due  to  accidents  at  the  hoisting  shaft  and  in  the  handling 
of  mine  ears.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  most  of  these 
accidents  might  be  prevented  by  more  stringent  laws,  more 
aggressive  enforcement  of  safeguards  by  the  State  Inspect- 
ors, and  better  discipline  at  the  mines. 

laws  to  pbetent  the  exploitation  of  minees 
miners'  lien 

From  1838  to  1850  any  person  employed  to  work  on  min- 
eral ground  had  a  lien  for  the  value  of  his  labor  against  any 
mineral  found  on  the  lot  where  he  was  employed.^*^  This 
law  was  intended  to  and  did  apply  principally  to  lead  mines. 
Coal  miners  did  not  receive  like  protection  until  1890  when  it 
was  enacted  that  ' '  Every  laborer  or  miner  who  shall  perform 
labor  in  opening  and  developing  any  coal  mine,  including  sink- 
ing shafts,  constructing  slopes,  or  drifts,  mining  coal  and  the 
like,  shall  have  a  lien  upon  all  the  property  of  the  person,  firm 
or  corporation,  owning,  constructing  or  operating  such  mine, 
used  in  the  construction  or  operation  thereof,  including  real 
estate,  buildings,  engines,  cars,  mules,  scales  and  all  other 
personal  property,  for  the  value  of  such  labor  ....  upon 
the  same  terms  with  the  same  rights  and  to  be  secured  and 
enforced  as  mechanics'  liens  are  secured  and  enforced".^** 

SCALE  LAWS 

Coal  mining  is  usually  paid  for  by  weight.  Inasmuch  as 
the  operator  furnishes  the  scales,  employs  the  weigh-master. 


64  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

and  keeps  the  accounts,  he  has  an  opportunity,  if  he  is  un- 
checked, to  systematically  defraud  his  employees  of  a  part  of 
their  wages.  The  weigh-master  has  a  similar  chance  to  favor 
one  miner  at  the  expense  of  another.  Even  without  inten- 
tional wrong  the  scales  may  be  allowed  to  get  out  of  order 
or  may  be  incorrect.  Such  abuses  did  prevail,  sometimes  to  a 
serious  extent,  in  the  earlier  history  of  coal  mining  in  lowa.^*^ 
Three  preventives  have  been  applied  by  statute;  the  check-- 
weighman,  the  sworn  weigh-master,  and  the  public  inspection 
of  mine  scales. 

The  right  of  miners  to  apjooint  a  check-weighman  who  is 
paid  by  themselves,  and  who  has  power  to  examine  all  scales 
and  apparatus  used  for  weighing  coal  and  to  see  each  miner's 
coal  weighed  and  recorded  was  first  secured  by  the  mines  and 
mining  act  of  1880.^'**^  Check-weighmen  are  now  regularly 
employed  at  all  shipping  mines.  An  act  "Providing  for  the 
Weighing  of  Coal  at  Mines",  passed  in  1888,  retains  the 
earlier  provision  for  check-weighmeu,  and  further  requires 
the  weigh-master  to  be  duly  sworn  "to  keep  the  scales  cor- 
rectly balanced,  to  accurately  weigh,  and  to  record  a  correct 
account  of  the  amount  weighed  of  each  miner's  car  of  coal". 
The  check  weigh-man  must  likewise  make  and  subscribe  on 
oath,  "that  he  is  duly  qualified  and  will  faithfully  discharge 
the  duties  of  check-weighman".  The  oaths  of  both  weigh- 
master  and  check-weighman  must  be  conspicuously  posted 
at  the  place  of  weighing.^*"^ 

The  same  act  provides  that  the  operator  of  each  coal  mine, 
at  which  the  miners  are  paid  by  weight,  shall  provide  "suit- 
able scales  of  standard  make  for  the  weighing  of  all  coal 
mined".  A  separate  act  of  the  same  year  pro^ddes  that  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Mine  Inspectors  "to  examine,  test  and 
adjust  as  often  as  occasion  demands  all  scales,  beams  and 
other  apparatus  used  in  weighing  coal  at  the  mines '  '.^'^^  The 
Inspectors  usually  test  scales  only  when  they  are  requested 
to  do  so ;  and  about  one-third  of  the  scales  tested  are  found 
defective. 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  65 

THE  SCREEN  LAW 

Soft  coal  before  being  loaded  for  shipment  is  commonly 
passed  over  a  screen  or  series  of  screens  by  which  it  is  divided 
into  several  grades  according  to  size,  as  lump,  nut,  pea,  and 
slack.  These  grades  are  all  marketable,  but  the  miners  usu- 
ally receive  pay  only  for  the  lump  coal.  Since  the  miners 
have  to  blast  and  load  all  the  coal  irrespective  of  size,  they 
insist  that  they  should  be  paid  for  all  of  it  "mine  run" — that 
is,  just  as  it  comes  from  the  mine.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
operators  contend  that  if  the  miners'  coal  were  weighed  be- 
fore being  screened,  the  men  would  be  careless  about  breaking 
up  the  large  lumps  and  would  load  an  abnormal  percentage 
of  waste  and  slack.  They  also  assert  that  the  ''screenings" 
are  allowed  for  in  computing  the  rate  for  lump  coal  and  the 
scale  would  have  to  be  reduced  if  the  mine  run  basis  of  pay- 
ment were  adopted.  Such  is  the  screen  question  which  has 
been  the  source  of  endless  controversy  in  Iowa  and  has  given 
rise  to  some  of  the  most  prolonged  and  expensive  strikes  in 
the  history  of  the  State.^^s 

The  only  attempt  to  deal  with  the  screen  question  by  stat- 
utory regulation  is  contained  in  an  act  of  1888  which  provides 
''That  all  coal  mined  in  this  State  under  contract  for  payment 
by  the  ton  or  other  quantity  shall  be  weighed  before  being 
screened  unless  otherwise  agreed  upon  in  writing,^^^  and  the 
full  weight  thereof  shall  be  credited  to  the  miner  of  such  coal ; 
and  eighty  pounds  of  coal  as  mined  shall  constitute  a  bushel, 
and  two  thousand  pounds  of  coal  as  mined  shall  constitute  a 
ton.  Provided  that  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  so  construed 
as  to  compel  payment  for  sulphur  rock  slate  black  jack  or 
other  impurities  including  slack^^^  and  dirt  which  may  be 
loaded  with  or  amongst  such  coal".  When  damages  are  sus- 
tained by  reason  of  failure  to  weigh  and  credit  any  coal  mined 
to  the  proper  person,  they  may  be  recovered  at  any  time  with- 
in two  years,  and  the  fact  that  the  miner  has  knowledge  of  the 
violation  of  the  law  at  the  time  does  not  constitute  a  bar  to 
recovery.2^2 


66  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  saving  clause,  unless  otherwise  agreed  upon,  was  in- 
serted by  the  Senate  Committee  on  Mines  and  Mining.^^^  The 
amendment  was  intended  to  and  did  render  the  law  inoper- 
ative. The  abstract  right  to  enter  into  agreements  for  mine 
run  payment  already  belonged  to  the  miners;  the  law  secured 
them  nothing  more.  Had  they  been  able  to  enforce  their  de- 
mands by  contract  they  would  have  needed  no  law. 

The  effect  of  the  Senate  amendment  was  fully  appreciated 
in  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly.  Nevertheless,  it 
was  finally  accepted  by  a  majority  of  the  advocates  of  the 
original  House  bill.  The  miners'  representatives  had  in  fact 
agreed  to  make  concessions  upon  this  bill  in  order  to  secure 
favorable  action  upon  others  then  pending.  Moreover,  it  was 
hoped  by  friends  of  the  measure  that  a  screen  law  being  once 
placed  upon  the  statute  books,  the  obnoxious  proviso  might 
be  removed  at  a  later  session.^^*  This  hope  has  not  been 
realized,  for  the  law  stands  to-day  as  it  was  enacted  in  1888.^^^ 
Nor  have  the  mine  workers  ever  been  able  to  secure  a  mine 
run  basis  from  the  operators. 

Except  for  the  abortive  mine  run  law,  there  is  no  legal 
regulation  of  coal  screening  in  this  State.  Both  the  size  of 
screen  and  the  opening  between  the  bars  have  furnished  fre- 
quent occasions  of  dispute.  Formerly  no  uniform  practice 
prevailed.  The  screens  at  some  of  the  mines  were  compared 
to  cattle  guards  on  the  railways ;  everything,  it  was  said,  went 
through  them  except  the  largest  lump  coal.^^^  Variations 
still  exist  in  the  ditferent  districts  of  the  State,  but  the  size 
and  character  of  the  screens  are  now  regulated  by  the  joint 
agxeement  of  miners  and  operators. 

THE    TRUCK    LAW 

Most  coal  mines  are  located  at  a  distance  from  centers  of 
population,  so  that  camps  must  be  formed  in  their  vicinity 
for  the  accommodation  of  employees.  Moreover,  since,  in 
Iowa  at  least,  a  mine  is  worked  out  in  a  few  years'  time, 
a  camp  is  a  rather  temporary  affair.     Under  such  circum- 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  67 

stances  independeut  capital  is  loathe  to  invest  and  the  con- 
struction of  a  camp  is  left  wholly  to  the  mining  corporation. 
The  mine  operator  buys  or  leases  an  extensive  tract  of  ground 
and  erects  offices,  dwellings,  and  other  needful  buildings,  in- 
cluding a  general  store.  The  store  very  frequently  is  con- 
ducted under  a  different  firm  name,  but  almost  always  is 
controlled  by  the  operating  company  itself;  and  it  handles 
everything  (except  alcoholic  drinks)  used  by  miners  and  their 
families. 

The  maintenance  of  "company  houses"  and  a  "company 
store"  may  be  a  necessity,  as  is  claimed;  it  certainly  is  good 
business  policy  for  the  operator.  A  considerable  share  of  the 
wages-bill  is  deducted  for  house-rent ;  the  greater  part  of  the 
rest  comes  back  through  the  store,  with  a  handsome  profit  on 
the  turn.  It  is  the  chance  of  increasing  these  profits  that 
tempts  the  operator  to  abuse  his  power.  Through  his  control 
of  the  adjacent  land  he  may  effectually  exclude  competition; 
and  through  fear  of  discharge  he  may  coerce  his  employees 
to  trade  at  the  company  store,  charging  them  exorbitant  prices 
for  everything  they  buy. 

There  seems  to  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  eighties  this  form 
of  oppression  attained  serious  proportions.  Employees  were 
required  to  live  in  company  houses  and  trade  at  the  company 
store.  If  they  declined,  their  services  were  dispensed  with. 
Miners  were  even  compelled  to  purchase  a  certain  quantity  of 
powder,  oil,  and  other  supplies  on  which  the  profits  were  un- 
usually high,  whether  they  needed  them  or  not.  At  some  of 
the  mines  wages  were  paid  in  scrip  or  "store  checks"  redeem- 
able only  in  merchandise. ^^"^ 

After  the  failure  of  earlier  attempts,^^^  the  Knights  of 
Labor  and  the  Amalgamated  Association  of  Miners  finally 
secured  the  enactment  of  a  truck  law  in  1888 — the  same  year 
that  the  scale  and  screen  laws  were  placed  upon  the  statute 
books.  This  act  subjects  to  heavy  penalties  any  person,  firm, 
company,  or  corporation,  owning  or  operating  a  coal  mine 
where  ten  or  more  persons  are  employed  which  shall  sell,  give, 


68  fflSTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

deliver,  or  in  any  manner  issue,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  pay- 
ment for  wages  due  for  labor,  or  as  advances  on  the  wages 
of  labor  not  due,  any  script,  check,  draft,  order  or  evidence 
of  indebtedness,  payable  or  redeemable  otherwise  than  at  their 
face  value  in  money.  To  compel,  or  seek  to  compel  or  coerce 
an  employee  of  any  person,  firm,  company,  or  corporation  to 
purchase  goods  or  supplies  from  any  particular  person,  firm, 
company,  or  corporation,  was  made  a  misdemeanor  punish- 
able by  a  fine  not  exceeding  five  hundred  dollars  or  imprison- 
ment not  exceeding  sixty  days.^^^ 

The  truck  act,  like  the  screen  law  passed  at  the  same  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature,  was  the  result  of  compromise.  In 
explaining  his  vote  the  author  of  the  House  bill  said  that  ' '  It 
was  hoped  by  the  friends  of  this  measure  that  a  law  could 
be  passed  protecting  the  interests  of  the  wage  workers  of  the 
State,  regardless  of  the  labor  in  which  they  are  engaged,  but 
such  seems  to  be  impossible  at  this  time;  but  as  this  will 
apply  to  more  than  12,000  laborers  in  Iowa,  and  is  a  step  in 
the  right  direction,  and  as  I  believe,  will  lead  in  the  near 
future  to  the  adoption  of  a  law  similar  to  the  one  proposed 
in  the  original  bill,  I  vote  aye".^^°  The  expectation  of  early 
amendment,  as  in  the  case  of  the  screen  law,  was  not  fulfilled. 
Both  acts  remain  unaltered  at  the  present  day.^^^ 

The  truck  law  of  1888  and  the  growth  of  a  powerful  labor 
union  (the  United  Mine  Workers)  have  done  away  with  the 
worst  abuses  of  former  times.  Payment  in  script  has  long 
sinc^  been  abandoned.  Coercion  of  employees  is  nowhere 
openly  attempted.  Prices  for  most  staple  articles  at  the  com- 
pany stores  are  not  now  higher  than  credit  prices  elsewhere.^^^ 

Even  at  the  present  day,  however,  truck  has  not  wholly 
disappeared  from  the  mining  industry  in  Iowa.  A  miner  who 
does  not  spend  a  part  of  his  wages  at  the  company  store,  or 
who  persists  in  renting  non-company  houses,  still  is  likely  to 
be  discriminated  against  by  the  operator.  And  the  operator 
has  many  ways  of  making  his  displeasure  felt  without  resort- 
ing to  open  coercion.    Thus  the  coal  companies  are  still  able 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  69 

to  make  two  profits — one  from  the  public  and  one  from  their 
employees. 

The  housing  system,  especially,  is  too  often  made  a  means 
of  extortion.  At  many  of  the  camps,  to  be  sure,  the  men  are 
encouraged  to  own  their  homes.  In  the  larger  mining  towns 
one  may  see  rows  of  comfortable  miners'  houses,  many  of 
them  mortgage-free.  But  such  thrift  is  rather  the  exception 
than  the  rule  among  coal  miners.  The  immense  majority  are 
tenants,  and  most  of  them  live  in  company  houses.  Grenerally, 
indeed,  there  are  no  other  dwellings  to  be  had  within  practic- 
able distance  of  the  mines.  The  company  houses  are  flimsy, 
comfortless  structures,  frankly  ugly,  unprovided  with  con- 
veniences of  any  sort,  and  built  in  sections,  so  that  they  can 
be  loaded  on  flat  cars  for  shipment  from  one  camp  to  another. 
Such  a  house,  costing  but  a  few  hundred  dollars  to  erect  and 
occupying  a  small  plot  of  cheap  land,  rents  at  the  rate  of 
one  dollar  per  month  for  each  room. 

SEMI-M0NTHI;Y  PAYMENT 

The  truck  law  of  1888  as  it  passed  the  House  contained 
a  section  which  required  that  every  person,  firm,  or  corpora- 
tion engaged  in  mining  coal  should  pay  all  wage  workers  twice 
in  each  month.^^^  This  provision  was  struck  out,  however,  by 
the  Senate.264 

It  was  the  practice  of  mine  operators  at  that  time  to  pay 
their  employees'  wages  about  the  fifteenth  or  twentieth  day 
of  the  month  following  that  in  which  they  were  earned.  Some 
twenty  days'  wages  were  thus  withheld  from  all  the  men  while 
a  new  employee  might  have  to  work  six  or  eight  weeks  before 
drawing  his  first  pay.  The  miners  were  compelled  by  this 
system  to  rely  on  credit  at  the  company  store  for  the  neces- 
sities of  life  between  paydays,  paying  the  higher  prices  which 
credit  always  involves.  The  demand  for  weekly  or  fort- 
nightly payment  was,  therefore,  a  demand  for  a  measure  of 
economic  independence.  With  the  cash  in  his  pocket  the  miner 
could  buy  where  he  pleased.^^^ 


70  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

All  demands  for  legislation  governing  the  frequency  of 
payment  were  successfully  opjDosed  by  the  mine  owning  inter- 
ests until  1894.  The  principal  section  of  the  act  then  passed 
reads  as  follows: 

''That  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  operating  any  coal 
mine  in  Iowa  in  which  more  than  two  men  are  employed  shall, 
upon  demmid  pay  their  employees  in  lawful  money  of  the 
United  States,  the  first  and  third  Saturdays  of  each  month 
the  full  amount  of  wages  earned  by  them  and  remaining  un- 
paid for  the  term  of  two  weeks  next  jDreceding  the  week  in 
which  payments  are  made,  and  in  no  case  shall  any  person, 
firm  or  corporation  operating  coal  mines  in  this  State  with- 
hold from  their  employees  more  than  the  amount  of  three 
weeks'  earnings  at  any  one  time."^^'^ 

An  employee  whose  wages  are  wrongfully  withheld  for  five 
days  after  demand  therefor  in  writing  may  recover  the  full 
amount  due  him  at  the  time  of  making  his  demand,  with  a 
penalty  of  one  dollar  for  each  succeeding  day,  not  however 
exceeding  double  the  amount  of  wages  due,  and  a  reasonable 
attorney's  fee. 

In  1900  it  was  enacted  that  mine  employees '  wages  earned 
during  the  first  fifteen  days  of  each  month  shall  be  paid  not 
later  than  the  first  Saturday  after  the  twentieth  of  the  same 
month,  and  those  earned  after  the  fifteenth  of  each  month, 
not  later  than  the  first  Saturday  after  the  fifth  of  the  succeed- 
ing month.^^^ 

The  law  of  1894  was  denounced  as  class  legislation,  as 
violating  the  freedom  of  contract,  and  as  clearly  unconstitu- 
tional.^^^. In  regard  to  the  first  contention,  a  bi-weekly,  or 
preferably  a  weekly,  payment  law  is  desirable  for  all  classes 
of  manual  labor.  But  the  evil  of  deferred  payment  was  more 
flagrant  in  the  coal  mining  industry  than  in  any  other  in  the 
State.    A  reform  may  well  begin  where  the  abuse  is  worst. 

The  plea  for  freedom  of  contract  is  here,  as  in  all  labor 
disputes,  purely  specious.  It  is  ever  made,  not  by  persons 
concerned  for  the  welfare  of  the  working  classes,  but  by  the 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  71 

defenders  of  private  interests.  Laborers  do  not  particularly 
value  the  right  not  to  receive  their  wages  in  money,  the  right 
to  be  discharged  at  will,  the  right  to  assume  extraordinary 
risks  without  compensation,  and  similar  rights  so  loudly  de- 
fended by  lawyers  and  so  solemnly  asserted  by  courts.  Be- 
tween economic  unequals  liberty  of  contract  means  only  liberty 
of  the  strong  to  oppress  the  weak.  A  large  part  of  labor 
legislation — child  labor  laws,  factory  laws,  truck  laws,  wage 
assignment  laws — restricts  the  theoretic  freedom  of  individ- 
ual contract ;  but  in  so  doing  it  promotes  real  liberty  of  action. 
The  writer  has  not  been  able  to  find  any  case  in  which  the 
constitutionality  of  the  bi-weekly  wage  law  was  called  in  ques- 
tion. But  the  law  has  stood  unchallenged  for  fourteen  years, 
and  judgments  awarded  in  accordance  with  its  terms  have 
been  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court.^^*^ 

GYPSUM     MINES^'^^ 

Although  the  existence  of  the  Fort  Dodge  gypsum  beds 
has  been  known  for  more  than  half  a  century^'^^  and  although 
plaster  mills  were  erected  in  that  vicinity  as  early  as  1872,^'^^ 
the  working  of  the  deposits  on  a  large  scale  is  of  recent  devel- 
opment. So  late  as  1889  the  product  of  crude  gypsum  in 
Iowa  amounted  to  but  twenty-one  thousand  short  tons.^"^*  In 
1906  the  output  was  two  hundred  and  eighty-six  thousand  tons 
and  the  gypsum  products  of  the  State  were  valued  at  nearly 
six  hundred  thousand  dollars.-'^^ 

The  Fort  Dodge  gypsum  deposits  occur  in  beds  of  ten  to 
twenty-five  feet  in  thickness  directly  underlying  the  glacial 
drift,  which  here  ranges  in  depth  from  one  to  one  hundred 
feet.^'^^  In  the  earlier  days  of  the  plaster  industry  in  this 
region,  the  gypsum  was  obtained  by  first  stripping  oif  the 
drift  at  points  where  this  deposit  was  thinnest  and  then  quar- 
rying the  rock  like  ordinary  building  stone.^*^"^  In  1895  the 
first  plaster  mill  was  built  on  the  open  prairie,  where,  owing 
to  the  great  thickness  of  the  drift,  a  vertical  shaft  was  sunk 
to  reach  the  gypsum.^'^^    The  new  method  proved  so  success- 


72  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

fill  that  it  was  quickly  adopted  by  other  establishments,  and 
the  quarries  were  soon  superseded  by  mines. 

The  greater  part  of  the  gypsum  output  in  the  Fort  Dodge 
district  is  now  mined  by  means  of  shafts  or  slopes.  The  mines 
are  worked  by  a  combination  of  the  room  and  pillar  with  the 
retreating  system^''^  and  the  rock  is  obtained  by  blasting  in 
much  the  same  manner  as  solid  shooting  coal.^^*^  Gypsum 
mining  thus  presents  many  of  the  same  problems  as  coal  min- 
ing in  the  Iowa  field.  These  problems  so  far  as  they  affect 
the  health  and  safety  of  operatives  are:  ventilation,  security 
of  entrances  and  working  places,  safe-guards  at  the  hoisting 
shaft,  and  provision  for  escape  when  for  any  reason  the  hoist- 
ing shaft  becomes  unavailable. 

In  regard  to  the  amount  of  ventilation  needed,  the  gypsum 
mines  are  free  from  gob  fires  and  from  the  possibility  of 
dust  explosions.  On  the  other  hand,  the  practice  of  blasting 
throughout  the  working  day,  which  has  been  for  some  time 
discontinued  in  the  coal  mines  of  this  State,  is  still  in  vogue 
at  the  gypsum  workings.  The  latter,  consequently,  are  seldom 
free  from  powder  smoke  or  the  still  more  poisonous  fumes  of 
high  explosives. ^^^  Other  sources  of  contamination,  such  as 
pit  lamps  and  the  respiration  and  excreta  of  men  and  animals, 
are  of  course  present  in  gypsum  mines  as  in  all  underground 
workings.  It  may  be  remarked  in  passing  that  all  the  Fort 
Dodge  mines  are  ventilated  by  fans  and  that  the  methods  of 
distributing  the  air  current  are  the  same  as  in  the  coal  mines 
of  the  State. 

The  entries  in  the  Fort  Dodge  mines  are  quite  high,  com- 
monly as  much  as  nine  or  ten  feet.  The  danger  to  drivers 
from  overhead  obstructions  is,  accordingly,  much  less  than 
in  most  coal  mines  of  the  Iowa  field.  The  roof,  too,  barring 
fissures,  is  generally  good,  though  accidents  from  falling  rock 
are  by  no  means  uncommon.  Considerable  trouble  is  occa- 
sioned by  percolating  water,  owing  to  numerous  vertical 
fissures  in  the  gypsum  beds.  On  the  whole,  however,  there 
seems  to  be  little  ground  of  complaint  as  to  the  safety  of 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  73 

rooms  and  entries  at  the  gypsum  mines,  so  far  as  this  depends 
upon  the  mine  operators. 

The  methods  of  raising  and  lowering  men  and  materials 
at  the  gypsum  mines  do  not  differ  in  any  important  respect 
from  those  in  use  at  coal  mines,  except  that  the  former  mines 
are  much  shallower.  The  necessity  of  safe-guarding  the  hoist- 
ing apparatus  is  the  same  in  both  cases.  A  second  outlet  is,  if 
anything,  even  more  necessary  at  a  gypsum  mine,  because  of 
the  extensive  plaster  mills,  composed  of  inflammable  ma- 
terials, which  are  erected  in  close  proximity  to  the  main  shaft. 

Inasmuch  as  the  Iowa  mine  law  is  so  framed  as  to  apply 
only  to  coal  mines,  the  gypsum  industry  was  allowed  to  grow 
up  without  State  supervision.  As  the  mining  operations  be- 
came more  extensive  and  the  number  of  underground  em- 
ployees mounted  into  hundreds,  some  of  the  characteristic 
evils  of  an  unregulated  mining  industry  made  their  appear- 
ance. 

Accordingly,  when  a  few  years  ago  a  gypsum  workers' 
union  was  organized  in  this  State  an  earnest  effort  was  made 
to  have  the  provisions  of  the  mine  law  and  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  State  Mine  Inspector  extended  over  the  gypsum  mines. 
A  bill  for  this  purpose  was  presented  to  the  General  Assem- 
bly of  1904,2^2  and,  backed  by  the  State  Federation  of  Labor, 
passed  the  Senate  without  opposition.^^^  But  in  the  House 
the  mine  operators,  with  the  aid  of  Representative  Wright 
of  Webster  County  (the  home  of  gypsum  mining)  succeeded 
in  defeating  the  bill.^^'^  Later  in  the  same  session  a  concur- 
rent resolution  was  passed,  providing  for  an  investigation  by 
the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  and  the 
Mine  Inspector  of  the  Third  District,  and  a  report  to  the 
Governor  upon  the  conditions  found.^^^  Three  inspections  of 
the  gypsum  mines  were  made  under  the  authority  of  this  reso- 
lution ;  the  first  in  September,  1904,  and  the  last  in  June,  1905. 
At  their  first  visit  the  Inspectors  found  some  of  the  mines 
deficient  in  ventilation  and  others  without  escape  shafts.  At 
the  largest  mine  in  the  district  the  escape  shaft  was  provided 


74  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

only  with  ladders,  instead  of  a  suitable  stairway.  These  de- 
fects were  largely  remedied  before  the  last  inspection.  It  is 
said,  also,  that  considerable  improvement  had  been  made  in 
anticipation  of  the  investigation.^^^  At  all  events,  the  final 
report  was  highly  favorable  to  the  gypsum  operators.^^"^ 
There  was  no  further  attempt  to  secure  legislation  until  1907. 
By  that  time  the  g}T)sum  workers  had  abandoned  their  organ- 
ization and  the  bill  died  in  committee  for  want  of  adequate 
support.^^^ 

Two  objections  are  urged  against  the  proposed  inclusion 
of  gypsum  mines  under  the  mine  law:  that  State  provision 
of  this  industry  is  unnecessary ;  and  that  it  would  be  imprac- 
ticable in  any  case  to  apply  the  same  regulations  to  gypsum 
as  to  coal  mining. 

As  to  the  second  of  these  contentions,  it  is  hard  to  see 
wherein  the  extension  of  the  mine  law  to  their  industry  would 
work  a  hardship  upon  the  gypsum  operators.  The  statutory 
provisions  relating  to  ventilation,  to  safe-guards  at  the  hoist- 
ing shaft  and  on  hoisting  apparatus,  to  escape  shafts  and 
escape  ways,  to  the  care  of  rooms  and  entrances,  to  the  trans- 
portation and  storage  of  exi3losives  would  appear  equally  ap- 
plicable to  all  mines  worked  on  the  same  general  principles, 
whether  their  product  is  coal,  or  shale,  or  gypsum.  Compe- 
tent foremen  and  engineers  are  as  necessary  in  the  one  kind 
of  mine  as  in  the  other,  though  there  may  be  merit  in  the 
suggestion  that  the  gypsum  industry  should  be  represented  on 
the  examining  board  and  that  a  special  examination  should 
be  set  for  those  seeking  certificates  as  foremen  of  gypsum 
mines.  The  screen  law  would,  of  course,  have  no  application 
to  gypsum  or  shale  mines,  and  the  truck  and  wage  laws  are 
not  at  present  needed.  But  these  laws  affect  only  the  trans- 
gressor: they  could  do  no  harm  in  any  case.  The  scale  law 
might  be  beneficial  at  those  works  where  the  miners  are  paid 
by  the  ton. 

The  plea  of  non-necessity  is  not  very  convincing.  It  may 
be  true  that  the  gypsum  mines  are  at  the  present  time  in  a 


MINE  LABOR  LEGISLATION  75 

fairly  safe  and  sanitary  condition.  But  the  purpose  of  inspec- 
tion laws  is  preventive  rather  than  corrective.  Already  there 
are  numerous  complaints  of  defective  brattices  and  stoppings, 
of  choked  airways,  and  of  sluggish  circulation.  There  is  little 
reason  to  doubt  that  regular  inspection  would  improve  these 
conditions  and  prevent  the  growth  of  more  serious  evils. 

The  gypsum  mines  are  few  in  number  and  near  together. 
Their  inspection  would,  therefore,  be  a  comparatively  easy 
task,  and  would  entail  very  little  expense  to  the  State.  Under 
all  the  circumstances  it  seems  anomalous  to  require  at  least 
semi-annual  inspection  of  every  coal  mine  having  a  daily  out- 
put of  fifty  tons  or  more  and  to  leave  without  any  supervision 
these  almost  equally  dangerous  mines  which  range  in  individ- 
ual capacity  from  one  hundred  to  five  hundred  tons  per  day. 


RAILWAY   LABOR    LEGISLATION 

The  chief  interest  in  Iowa  railway  labor  legislation  attaches 
to  efforts  to  lessen  the  fearful  loss  of  life  and  limb  attendant 
upon  the  operation  of  railroads.  Though  railway  building  in 
Iowa  began  in  the  fifties  no  record  of  accidents  was  kept  until 
1878,  when  the  State  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  was 
established.^^^  During  the  twenty-nine  years  beginning  with 
that  year  and  ending  June  30,  1906,  the  railway  companies 
reported  1,928  employees  killed  and  15,918  injured  within  the 
limits  of  the  State.^^^  Unfortunately  the  Commissioners '  sta- 
tistical reports  since  1892  do  not  admit  of  analysis,^^^  but  for 
the  earlier  half  of  the  period  the  principal  causes  of  death  and 
injury  were  as  shown  in  the  following  table: 

TABLE  I — ACCIDENTS  TO  RAILWAY  EMPLOYEES  IN  IOWA,  1878-1893^^^ 


g 

O   ^ 

QQ 

^ 

^   b*     _ 

g 

1 

^  - 

< 

CEN 
IDEN 
YEES 

^ 

3 

p 

D 

9  o 

CP 

ij 

1-3 

02 

05  O  ^q 

o 

►H 

!5 

< 

H   <)  Sh 

■< 

M 

o 

fc 

Coupling  and  uncoupling  cars  213 

2144 

2357 

34.2 

Falling  from  trains 

306 

614 

920 

13.3 

Getting  on  and  off  trains 

in 

niotion293 

62 

365 

427 

6.2 

Collisions 

94 

290 

384 

5.5 

Derailments 

63 

231 

294 

4.3 

Overhead  obstructions 

26 

73 

99 

1.4 

Being  caught  in  frogs^^* 

41 

32 

73 

1.0 

Other  train  accidents^^^ 

44 

124 

168 

2.4 

Operation  of  trains 

849 

3873 

4722 

68.5 

Other  causes 

178 

1989 

2167 

31.5 

All  causes 

1027 

5862 

6889 

100.0 

RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  77 

The  above  table  is  not  absolutely  trustworthy,  since  the 
returns  upon  which  it  is  based  are  confused,  scattered,  and 
sometimes  conflicting.  Taking  the  figures  at  their  face  value, 
however,  they  show  that  68.5  per  cent  of  all  accidents  to  em- 
ployees (849  deaths  and  3,873  injuries)  during  these  fifteen 
years  occurred  in  the  operation  of  trains.  It  is  evident  from 
this  statement  that  the  loss  of  life  and  limb  fell  most  heavily 
upon  train  crews,  who  would  naturally  be  the  principal  suf- 
ferers from  train  accidents.  This  inference  is  abundantly 
supported  by  the  record  for  1890,  1891  and  1892,  the  only 
years  for  which  complete  data  are  available.  Analysis  of  the 
returns  for  these  years  gives  the  following  results: 

Average  number  of  all  railway  employees  in  Iowa 27,377 

Average  number  of  railway  trainmen  ^96  jq  Iowa 5,896 

Number  of  all  railway  employees  killed  in  Iowa 235 

Number  of  railway  trainmen  killed  in  Iowa 134 

Number  of  all  raihvay  employees  injured  in  Iowa 1,767 

Number  of  railway  trainmen  injured  in  Iowa 930 

During  these  three  years  then,  21.5  per  cent  of  the  railway 
employees  in  Iowa  suffered  57  per  cent  of  the  deaths  and  52.6 
per  cent  of  the  injuries  sustained  by  railway  employees  in 
the  State.  Of  trainmen,  one  in  every  one  hundred  thirty-two 
was  killed,  and  one  in  seventy-seven  injured. 

Nothing  could  more  clearly  demonstrate  than  do  the  unfeel- 
ing figures  just  recited  that  legislation  for  the  protection  of 
railway  employees  should  be  primarily  directed  toward  secur- 
ing greater  safety  in  the  operation  of  trains.  Iowa  laws 
looking  to  this  end  are  those  requiring  automatic  couplers  and 
train  brakes,  regulating  the  height  of  overhead  obstructions, 
limiting  the  hours  of  continuous  employment  for  certain 
classes  of  railway  operatives,  and  providing  for  the  investi- 
gation and  report  of  accidents  on  railways. 

AUTOMATIC    COUPLERS 

More  than  one-third  of  the  accidents  to  railway  employees 
during  the  period  1878-1892  (showing  a  total  of  213  deaths 


78  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

and  2,144  injuries)  were  received  in  coupling  and  uncoupling 
cars.  These  casualties  nearly  all  occurred  in  the  freight  serv- 
ice. They  were  largely  due  to  the  use  of  link  and  pin  couplers 
which  required  men  to  go  between  the  ends  of  cars  in  order  to 
couple  or  uncouple  them.  Mangled  hands  formed  the  chief 
item  in  the  list  of  injuries  from  tliis  cause.  A  brakeman 
could  seldom  work  for  any  length  of  time  without  losing  one  or 
more  fingers.  The  railway  officials  insisted  that  a  majority 
of  coupling  accidents  were  due  to  carelessness  on  the  part  of 
the  men  injured;  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  required  a  rare 
union  of  skill,  vigilance,  and  good  fortune  to  escape  death 
or  maiming  in  handling  link  and  pin  couplers. 

With  the  old  type  of  coupler  in  use  more  than  thirteen 
thousand  persons  were  killed  or  injured  in  the  United  States 
during  the  seven  years  1878-1884  from  coupling  cars  alone.^^"^ 
This  fearful  toll  of  human  life  and  limb  early  directed  invent- 
ive genius  to  the  problem  of  a  safety  coupler.  Some  thirty- 
five  hundred  coupling  devices  were  patented  before  1885,  and 
twelve  of  this  number  were  approved  by  the  National  Master 
Car  Builder's  Association  after  an  extended  series  of  experi- 
ments at  Buffalo  in  September,  1884.^^^  It  was  necessary, 
however,  for  some  standard  type  of  coupler  to  be  selected  for 
adoption,  since  cars  belonging  to  all  the  leading  roads  became 
scattered  over  each  other's  lines  in  the  course  of  traffic.  After 
several  years  of  discussion  and  experiment  the  Janey-coupler 
was  finally  agreed  upon  by  the  Master  Car  Builder's  Asso- 
ciation in  1887,  and  their  choice  was  ratified  by  the  principal 
railway  s.^^^ 

But  the  action  of  master  car  builders  and  railway  officials 
did  not  end  the  matter;  there  still  remained  the  task  of  per- 
suading directors  to  incur  the  heavy  initial  expenditure  neces- 
sary to  provide  the  new  equipment.  The  directors,  more  con- 
cerned about  the  size  of  dividends  than  the  saving  of  human 
life,  procrastinated.  So  the  killing  and  maiming  of  men  went 
on  undiminished  for  years  after  a  perfectly  practical  remedy 
was  known  to  exist.    It  was  the  pressure  of  public  authority. 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  79 

and  not  the  voluntary  action  of  railway  companies,  which 
finally  brought  about  the  adoption  of  safety  couplers.^^*^ 

Legislation  requiring  automatic  couplers  to  be  placed  upon 
all  new  or  repaired  cars  was  enacted  by  Massachusetts  as  early 
as  1884.  Her  example  was  speedily  followed  by  New  York, 
Michigan,  and  other  States.  Similar  legislation  was  repeat- 
edly recommended  by  Railway  Commissioner  Coffin  of  the 
Iowa  Board,^^^  and  bills  for  this  purpose  were  introduced  at 
successive  sessions  of  the  General  Assembly  of  lowa,^^^  but 
none  became  law  until  1890. 

The  automatic-coupler  and  power-brake  law  of  1890  was 
drawn  by  Mr.  L.  S.  Coffin  of  Fort  Dodge,  who  for  years  as  a 
member  of  the  Iowa  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners  had 
been  agitating  for  the  adoption  of  safety  apioliances  on  rail- 
ways. The  bill  was  warmly  supported  by  the  Knights  of 
Labor  and  by  railway  trainmen;  it  was  accepted  as  inevitable 
by  some  of  the  leading  railroads  of  the  State  and  though  op- 
posed by  others  passed  with  but  seven  dissenting  votes  in  the 
House  and  without  dissent  in  the  Senate.^^^  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  the  Iowa  law  became  one  of  the  models  for  the  act 
of  Congress  three  years  afterward,  and  that  Mr.  Coffin  was 
very  active  in  securing  the  passage  of  the  latter. 

The  Iowa  statute  makes  it  unlawful  *'to  put  in  use  in  this 
State  any  new  cars  or  any  cars  that  have  been  sent  in  to  the 
shop  or  shops  for  general  repairs,  or  whose  draft  rigging  has 
to  be  repaired  with  a  new  draw-bar  or  bars,  that  are  not 
equipped  with  safety  or  automatic  couplers,  such  as  will  not 
necessitate  the  going  between  the  ends  of  the  cars  to  couple 
or  uncouple  them,  but  operated  from  the  side  of  the  car". 
From  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  1895,  all  cars  used 
in  the  transportation  of  freight  or  passengers  upon  any  rail- 
road in  Iowa  must  be  so  equipped.  A  fine  of  not  less  than 
five  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand  dollars  is  pre- 
scribed for  each  violation ;  but  the  law  does  not  apply  to  cars 
belonging  to  railroads  other  than  those  of  Iowa  and  employed 
in  interstate  commerce.^^* 


80  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  average  life  of  an  old-style  draw-bar  was  estimated 
at  three  and  one-half  years.^*^^  It  was  expected,  therefore,  that 
automatic  couplers  would  have  completely  replaced  the  link 
and  pin  before  the  expiration  of  the  time  limit  fixed  by  the 
law.  This  expectation  was  not  realized,  for  the  legislature,  in 
1892,  postponed  until  January  1,  1898,  the  date  when  all  cars 
must  be  equipped  with  automatic  couplers,  and  authorized 
the  State  Board  of  Kailroad  Commissioners  to  grant  further 
extensions  up  to  the  first  day  of  January,  1900.  After  that 
date  railroad  companies  must  refuse  to  accept  from  connect- 
ing lines  cars  to  be  used  within  the  limits  of  Iowa  unless  fully 
equipped  as  required  by  law.^^° 

The  accompanying  table  (Table  II  below)  shows  the  extent 
of  compliance  with  the  law  relating  to  automatic  couplers,  and 
suggests  the  effect  of  these  appliances  in  saving  life  and 
limb.^^^  The  process  of  equipping  freight  cars  with  automatic 
couplers  began  about  1889  and  was  practically  completed  by 
1900.  There  are,  then,  three  periods  in  Iowa  railway  history 
as  regards  the  type  of  couplers  used:  (1)  the  link  and  pin 
era,  before  1890;  (2)  the  transition  period  from  1890  to  1900; 
and  (3)  the  period  of  the  all  but  universal  use  of  automatic 
couplers  beginning  with  1901.  During  the  twelve  years  of  the 
first  period  ending  with  1889,  one  hundred  seventy-two  men 
were  killed  and  above  fifteen  hundred  injured  in  coupling  and 
uncoupling  cars,  a  yearly  average  of  fourteen  deaths  and  one 
hundred  twenty-six  injuries.  In  the  six  years  1901-1906,  when 
almost  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  all  cars  were  equipped  with 
automatic  couplers,  the  annual  number  of  casualties  in  cou- 
pling and  uncoupling  was  less  than  half  as  great,  though  there 
were  nearly  twice  as  many  employees  and  more  than  three 
times  as  many  cars  as  in  the  earlier  period.  Coupling  acci- 
dents which  caused  more  than  one-third  of  all  casualties  to 
railroad  men  before  1890,  have  produced  but  one-nineteenth 
of  the  total  since  1901.  A  comparison  of  the  earlier  and  later 
years  of  the  transition  period  (1890-1900)  exliibits  the  same 
tendency,  the  number  and  proportion  of  coupling  accidents 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  81 

diminishing  as  the  percentage  of  automatic  couplers  increases. 

TABLE  II ACCIDENTS  IN   COUPLING  AND   UNCOUPLING    CAES,   1878- 

1906  ^«« 


i» 

1^ 

NUMBER      OF      CARS 
EQUIPPED  A7ITH  AU- 
TOMATIC COUPLERS 

PER    CENT    OF    CARS 
EQUIPPED  WITH  AU- 
TOMATIC COUPLERS 

NUMBER  KILLED  COU- 
PLING AND  UNCOU- 
PLING   CARS 

NUMBER        INJURED 
COUPLING  AND  UN- 
COUPLING   CARS 

PER  CENT  OF  ALL  AC- 
CIDENTS   TO    RAIL- 
WAY       EMPLOYEES 
DUE  TO  COUPLING  & 
UNCOUPLING   CARS 

1878 

29,057 

17 

70 

43.5 

1879 

31,584 

14 

55 

45.1 

1880 

54,451 

17 

87 

56.2 

1881 

67,510 

20 

64 

38.8 

1882 

85,206 

16 

182 

34:5 

1883 

98,106 

16 

98 

33.8 

1884 

103,337 

8 

109 

28.2 

1885 

102,835 

13 

174 

23.6 

1886 

106,178 

10 

126 

34.3 

1887 

91,097 

9 

134 

34.6 

1888 

113,975 

19 

240 

45.8 

1889 

120,757 

4,210 

3.48 

13 

164 

28.7 

1890 

127,464 

9,194 

7.23 

14 

203 

33.3 

1891 

130,103 

18,178 

13.98 

13 

242 

37.3 

1892 

149,731 

34,315 

22.92 

14 

196 

31.4 

1893 

142,730 

49,871 

34.95 

10 

196 

27.2 

1894 

127,171 

46,558 

36 .66 

7 

91 

23.61 

1895 

158,721 

58,862 

37.02 

5 

80 

22.54 

1896 

182,529 

70,718 

38 .74 

6 

97 

23.02 

1897 

171,909 

101,851 

59.25 

7 

80 

26.28 

1898 

176,035 

142,638 

81.04 

4 

75 

22.89 

1899 

190,730 

180,505 

94.65 

12 

72 

20.49 

1900 

200,814 

188,656 

93 .95 

8 

59 

12.92 

1901 

211,883 

250,464 

99.32 

6 

52 

8.27 

1902 

237,289 

236,276 

99.4 

4 

49 

5.78 

1903 

267,127 

264,587 

99.09 

11 

83 

8.54 

1904 

284,748 

280,559 

98 .54 

10 

75 

6.49 

1905 

288,133 

282,717 

98.18 

5 

45 

3.45 

1906 

297,925 

294,344 

98.47 

5 

57 

3.76 

313 

3253 

20. 

.41 

14.3 

125 :6 

34.3 

51.27 

9.1 

126 

26.6 

98.86 

6.8 

60 

5.4 

82  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Aggregate,  1878-1906 

TEAKLY    AVERAGE 

1878-1889      83,674  351 

YEARLY    AVERAGE 

1890-1900     159,812       81,940 

YEARLY    AVERAGE 

1901-1906     264,517     261,491 

An  incidental  effect  of  the  adoption  of  automatic  couplers 
has  been  a  marked  reduction  in  the  number  of  accidents  from 
being  caught  in  frogs.  During  the  eleven  years  ending  with 
1888,  forty-one  men  were  killed  and  thirty-two  injured  in  this 
manner;  in  the  six  years,  1901-1906,  there  were  seven  deaths 
and  thirteen  injuries  from  the  same  cause.^^^  The  annual 
number  of  accidents  from  being  caught  in  frogs  was  6.6  in 
the  earlier  period,  and  3.3  in  the  later.  The  difference  is 
principally  due  to  the  fact  that  men  are  no  longer  compelled 
as  formerly  to  step  between  the  rails  in  coupling  and  uncou- 
pling cars.  In  part,  perhaps  it  may  be  explained  by  the  par- 
tial blocking  of  frogs  upon  some  railways. 

POWER   BRAKES 

In  records  of  accidents  to  railway  employees  the  item 
*' falling  from  trains  and  engines  in  motion"  occupies  a  place 
only  second  to  that  of  "coupling  and  uncoupling  cars".  In 
fatality,  indeed,  "falling  from  trains"  distances  all  rivals, 
having  occasioned  twenty -nine  per  cent  of  all  deaths  suffered 
by  railway  employees  in  Iowa  since  1878.  As  shown  by  Table 
II  there  were  upon  the  railroads  of  this  State  554  deaths  and 
1,731  injuries  from  this  single  cause  during  the  period  1878- 
1906.  A  very  large  number  of  these  casualties  were  directly 
traceable  to  the  hand-brake  in  the  use  of  which  brakemen 
were  compelled  to  pass  from  one  end  to  the  other  of  a  long 
freight  train  over  the  uneven,  slippery  decks  of  lurching  cars 
in  all  sorts  of  weather  and  at  all  hours  of  the  day  and  night. 
It  would  tax  the  resources  of  a  trained  acrobat  to  maintain 
his  footing  under  such  circumstances.  But  the  brakeman  was 
not  required  merely  to  keep  on  his  legs:   he  must  promptly 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  83 

set  or  release  the  brakes,  meantime  keeping  a  sharp  lookout 
for  overhead  bridges.  Little  wonder  that,  with  the  link  and 
pin  coupler  and  hand-brake,  his  occupation  should  be  spoken 
of  as  equaling  in  peril  that  of  a  soldier  in  time  of  war.^^^ 

The  hand-brake  was  not  only  a  source  of  peril  to  brake- 
men;  it  was  inadequate  to  the  control  of  heavy  freight  trains. 
Derailments  occurred  through  inability  properly  to  reduce 
speed  in  passing  switches.  A  long  freight  train  sometimes 
parted  on  a  heavy  grade  and  the  wild  cars  left  the  track  or 
collided  with  a  following  train.  These  evils  were  early  recog- 
nized, and  the  remedy  sought  in  "power  brakes"  operated 
from  the  engine-cab.  The  use  of  air-brakes  on  passenger  cars 
began  in  the  seventies,^^-  and  many  experiments  in  their  appli- 
cation to  freight  trains  were  made  during  the  course  of  the 
following  decade.^^^  But,  as  in  the  case  of  automatic  couplers, 
railways  were  slow  to  adopt  the  new  brake  even  when  its 
practicability  had  been  clearly  demonstrated. 

As  early  as  1885,  Commissioner  Coffin  had  said  that  "there 
is  really  no  more  necessity  for  continuing  the  present  prac- 
tice of  using  hand-brakes  on  top  of  freight  cars,  than  there  is 
for  putting  men  on  the  tops  of  passenger  trains.  The  fact 
that  trains  of  cars  are  run  with  almost  perfect  safety  to 
trainmen,  because  of  the  use  of  air  and  other  automatic  brakes, 
and  this  other  fact  that  with  the  use  of  the  common  hand- 
brake there  is  every  year  a  fearful  loss  of  life  as  well  as  of 
property,  and  a  great  amount  of  suffering — these  facts,  we 
repeat,  are  sufficient  to  warrant  legislation  that  will  require 
railway  companies  to  adopt  such  appliances  as  will  prevent 
this  loss  of  life  and  property.  "^^* 

Without  such  legislation  only  three  per  cent  of  the  cars  in 
use  as  late  as  1889  were  equipped  with  train  brakes.^^^  The 
continuing  waste  of  human  life  and  the  apparent  indifference 
of  railway  corporations  at  last  forced  the  legislature  to 
intervene. 

The  Coffin  Act  of  1890^^^  provided,  that  after  January  1, 
1892,^^'^  every  locomotive  used  in  Iowa  must  be  equipped  with 


84  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

a  ''driver  brake"  and  that  after  January  1,  1893,^^"^  every 
train  must  contain  a  sufficient  number  of  cars  equipped  with 
some  kind  of  automatic  or  power  brake  to  enable  the  loco- 
motive engineer  to  control  the  train  without  requiring  the  use 
of  the  hand-brake. 

The  Iowa  law  of  1890,  and  still  more  the  Federal  law  of 
1893,^^^  greatly  accelerated  the  equipment  of  freight  cars  with 
train  brakes,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  accompanying  table 
(Table  III).  But  the  number  of  casualties  due  to  falling  from 
trains  has  not  correspondingly  diminished.  From  1878  to 
1889,  when  almost  no  freight  trains  were  equipped  with  air 
brakes,  the  annual  deaths  from  this  cause  averaged  19.8,  and 
the  injuries,  34.7;  from  1901  to  1906,  when  more  than  four- 
fifths  of  all  cars  were  so  equipped,  the  yearly  averages  were 
17.6  and  117.8,  respectively.  We  have,  then,  a  slight  falling 
off  in  the  absolute  number  of  deaths  and  a  great  increase  in 
the  absolute  number  of  injuries  per  year.  Relatively,  the 
showing  is  somewhat  more  favorable.  The  number  of  railway 
employees  in  the  State  averaged  22,240  for  the  period  1878- 
1889,  and  40,267  from  1901  to  1906.  Thus  the  annual  rate  of 
fatality  per  thousand  employees  was  .89  for  the  earlier  period 
and  only  .44  for  the  later.  On  the  other  hand,  the  annual 
number  of  injuries  per  thousand  was  2.9  for  the  years  1901- 
1906,  as  against  1.5  for  the  earlier  period. ^^^ 

TABLE  III — ACCIDENTS  DUE  TO  FAIxLING  FKOM  TRAINS,  1878-1906 

J   O   H  ►J     '     CQ   C! 

►a  w  w  J  d  W  !z; 

&!="  JO  go  feo2<jW 

O  (y  ee  JK  t^«  OE-'Kfe^ 

ZO  «Sr«  r^gm  ^    ^  2^ 

ao.  KzM  pjztB  atd'^ 

Ow  WS^  wSg;  gg  k^ 

>^  Ah         "^  Z  ^;  CK 

1878  14  11  14.6 

1879  10  12  14 

1880  11  8  10 

1881  20  10  13.4 

1882  1.8  31  57  14.8 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  85 

1883 
1884 
1885 
1886 
1887 
1888 
1889 
1890 
1891 
1892 
1893 
1894 
1895 
1896 
1897 
1898 
1899 
1900 
1901 
1902 
1903 
1904 
1905 
1906 
Aggregate  1878-1906 

Yearly  Ave.  1878-1889   1.7       19.8       34.7       13.3 

Yearly  Ave.  1890-1900  41.5       19         55.3        14.5 

Yearly  Ave.  1901-1906  82.4       17.6       117.8        9.7 

OVERHEAD   OBSTRUCTIONS 

During  the  twenty-nine  years  ending  June  30,  1906,  there 
were  reported  two  hundred  and  four  accidents  to  trainmen 
in  the  State  of  Iowa  from  *' overhead  obstructions" — that  is, 
bridges,  viaducts,  and  wires  too  low  to  be  cleared  by  a  man 
standing  on  the  top  of  a  car.  The  height  of  overhead  bridges 
and  viaducts  is  regulated  by  statute  m  several  States  ;^2^ 
but  in  Iowa  it  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  railway  officials. 


1.8 

33 

42 

22.8 

1.8 

10 

57 

13.7 

2 

16 

34 

6.3 

2 

25 

38 

16 

2.8 

23 

39 

15 

1.7 

32 

52 

14.8 

3 

13 

56 

12.6 

8 

17 

53 

10.7 

11 

23 

82 

15 

19.4 

28 

63 

13.6 

27.4 

22 

68 

11.8 

29.7 

17 

32 

11.7 

33.3 

20 

37 

15.1 

47 

19 

35 

12 

52.7 

14 

65 

23.8 

59.8 

18 

50 

19.7 

67 

12 

64 

18.5 

67 

20 

59 

15.2 

75 

21 

100 

17.1 

77.5 

6 

98 

11.3 

81.3 

27 

87 

10.3 

83.2 

20 

147 

11 

85.4 

11 

102 

7.8 

89.9 

21 

173 

11.6 

554 

1731 

12.8 

86  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

''Guards"  or  ''warnings",  are,  however,  usually  placed  at 
some  distance  on  each  side  of  dangerously  low  bridges;  and 
these  afford  a  certain  protection  to  brakemen. 

The  great  extension  of  telephone  and  electric  railway  lines 
added  a  new  peril  to  the  brakeman's  already  hazardous  call- 
ing— namely,  the  overhead  wire.  Rural  telephone  companies, 
especially,  like  to  string  their  wires  as  low  as  possible,  even 
across  a  railroad  right  of  way,  in  order  to  save  the  extra 
cost  of  long  poles/''^^  The  extent  of  this  practice  led,  in  1907, 
to  the  passage  of  an  act  giving  the  State  Board  of  Railroad 
Commissioners  general  supervision  over  all  wires  crossing 
railroad  tracks  within  the  State.  The  Commissioners  are  re- 
quired to  prescribe  rules  and  regulations  for  the  stringing  of 
such  wires,  to  examine  those  already  strung,  and  to  fix  a 
minimum  height,  not  less  than  twenty-two  feet  above  the  top 
of  the  rails,  at  which  wires  may  lawfully  be  placed  above 
railway  tracks.^^^ 

In  July  following  the  enactment  of  this  law  the  Railroad 
Commissioners  adopted  very  full  regulations  in  accordance 
with  its  terms.  A  member  of  the  Board  is  authority  for  the 
statement  that  complaints  on  this  score  have  now  practically 
ceased. 

HOURS  OF  SERVICE  IN  THE  OPERATION  OF  TRAINS 

Many  a  railway  disaster  is  directly  attributable  to  the 
unreasonable  hours  often  exacted  from  trainmen.  Some  ideas 
of  the  extent  to  which  this  evil  recently  prevailed  may  be 
gathered  from  the  subjoined  table  of  hours  of  service  by  rail- 
way trainmen  in  Iowa,  in  1905. 

TABLE  IV HOURS  OF  SERVICE  OF  RAILWAY  TRAINMEN  IN  IOWA, 

1905  ^^^ 


Number  reporting 42 

Roads   represented 9 


m 

(6 

.    i 

Z 

% 

g 

H 
M 

o 

« 

Sz 

< 

"z 

o 

a 

(^ 

P^ 

o 

m 

i2 

23 

22 

22 

9 

6 

5 

6 

RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  87 

Average  number  of  hours 

per  trip 10.56  10.73  11.33  11.51 

Greatest  number  of  hours 

on  continuous  duty 57  36  40  36 

According  to  this  table  the  average  run  for  all  classes  of 
trainmen  exceeded  ten  hours,  while  a  train  crew  was  occasion- 
ally kept  continually  on  duty  for  lengths  of  time  ranging  from 
twenty  to  fifty-seven  hours.  Overtime  work,  indeed,  was 
chronic  on  certain  roads,  particularly  in  the  local  freight 
service.  It  was  not  merely  that  unavoidable  delays  some- 
times occurred,  but  it  was  that  the  capacity  of  locomotives, 
cars,  and  roadbed  was  habitually  overtaxed  and  that  too  few 
men  were  employed  in  proportion  to  the  traffic  handled.  Not 
only  were  train  crews  kept  too  long  upon  the  road  at  one 
time,  but  they  were  liable  to  be  called  out  again  after  a  few 
hours'  rest  from  a  long  and  exhausting  trip.^^*  It  needs  no 
argument  to  show  that  no  locomotive  engineer  or  train  con- 
ductor can  properly  perform  his  exacting  and  responsible 
duties  with  safety  either  to  his  co-employees  or  to  the  travel- 
ing public  without  adequate  intervals  for  rest  and  sleep. 

The  evil  of  excessive  hours  for  railway  trainmen  is  as  old 
as  the  history  of  railroading.  The  attempt  to  correct  it  by 
legislation  is  much  more  recent.  The  Iowa  law  dates  from  the 
year  1907.  It  forbids  any  railway  company,  its  officers,  or 
agents  to  require  or  permit  any  employee  engaged  in  or  con- 
nected with  the  operation  of  trains,  to  remain  on  duty  more 
than  sixteen  consecutive  hours,  or  to  perform  any  further 
service  after  sixteen  hours'  consecutive  duty  without  having 
had  at  least  ten  hours  for  rest,  or  to  be  on  duty  more  than  six- 
teen hours  in  any  twenty-four.  But  these  provisions  do  not 
apply  to  employees  of  sleeping-car  companies  or  to  trainmen 
engaged  in  the  protection  of  life  and  property  in  cases  of  acci- 
dent; nor  do  they  prevent  train  crews  from  talring  a  passen- 
ger train  or  a  freight  train  loaded  exclusivel'if^^  with  live  stock 
or  perishable  freight  to  the  nearest  division  terminus.  Nor, 
finally  do  the  prohibitions  apply  to  the  time  necessary  for 


88  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

the  trainmen  to  reach  a  resting  place  when  delayed  by  some 
unavoidable  cause.  It  is  made  the  duty  of  the  State  Board  of 
Eailroad  Commissioners  to  prosecute  violators  of  the  law, 
and  to  investigate  all  complaints  of  violation  withholding, 
when  so  requested,  the  name  of  the  complainant.  In  making 
investigations  the  Board  has  power  to  administer  oaths,  inter- 
rogate witnesses,  take  testimony,  and  require  the  production 
of  books  and  papers.^^® 

The  exception  of  sleeping-car  employees  and  the  clause 
permitting  a  train  crew  to  take  passenger  trains  or  freight 
trains  loaded  exclusively  with  live  stock  or  perishable  freight 
to  the  division  terminus  were  inserted  by  the  House  Com- 
mittee on  Labor.^^"^  The  second  of  these  provisions  was  in- 
tended to  prevent  the  stranding  of  passengers,  live  stock,  or 
perishable  freight  at  out-of-the-way  places.  An  attempt  made 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  to  strike  the  word  *' exclusively " 
from  the  committee  report  was  defeated ;  such  a  change  would 
have  opened  the  way  for  many  of  the  old  abuses. 

INVESTIGATION   OF  KAILWAY  ACCIDENTS 

The  law  establishing  the  State  Board  of  R-ailroad  Com- 
missioners (1878)  required  the  Board,  if  they  should  deem  it 
necessary,  to  investigate  any  railway  accident  resulting  in 
personal  injury  or  loss  of  life  and  to  promptly  report  to  the 
Governor  the  extent  of  the  personal  injury  or  loss  of  life,  and 
whether  the  same  was  due  to  the  mismanagement  or  neglect 
of  the  corporation  upon  whose  line  the  accident  occurred. 
But  nothing  in  the  Commissioners'  report  might  be  used  as 
evidence  or  referred  to  in  any  case  in  any  court.^^^  This  pro- 
vision was  omitted  in  the  Code  of  1897,  but  was  re-enacted  in 
1907.^^"^  The  Board  has  made  use  of  its  power  chiefly  in  the 
case  of  collisions  and  derailments.  The  investigation  of  such 
"accidents"  by  a  public  authority  and  the  resulting  fixation 
of  responsibility  strongly  tends  to  lessen  the  frequency  of 
their  occurrence.  Nor  has  the  Board  hesitated  to  attach 
blame  for  inadequate  equipment  or  negligent  management 
where  such  blame  was  due. 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  89 

REPORT    OF    ACCIDENTS    TO    RAILWAY    EMPLOYEES 

Ever  since  its  establishment  the  Iowa  Board  has  compiled 
each  year  a  list  of  accidents  to  persons  upon  the  railways  of 
the  State.  Authority  to  do  so  is  found  in  a  section  of  the 
law  of  1878  establishing  the  Board,  which  requires  an  annual 
report  to  the  Governor,  ''containing  such  facts,  statements 
and  explanations  as  will  disclose  the  working  of  the  system 
of  railroad  transportation  in  this  state"  (Sec.  IV).  Another 
section  of  the  same  law  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  president 
or  managing  officer  of  each  railroad  corporation  doing  busi- 
ness in  Iowa,  annually  to  "make  to  the  said  commissioners 
such  returns,  in  the  form  which  they  may  prescribe,  as  will 
afford  the  information  required  for  their  said  official  report" 
(Sec.  V). 

The  Commissioners'  annual  reports  show  in  tabular  form 
the  number  of  casualties  to  passengers,  employees,  and 
"others",  respectively;  also,  ivithout  distinguishing  these 
classes,  the  number  of  deaths  and  injuries  due  to  coupling 
cars,  falling  from  trains,  getting  on  or  off  trains  in  motion, 
derailments,  collisions,  and  other  leading  causes.  For  only 
four  years  (1889-1892)  are  the  casualties  to  employees  com- 
piled. For  the  earlier  years  of  the  Board's  existence  this  in- 
formation was  given  in  the  detailed  returns,  but  this  practice 
was  discontinued  with  the  report  of  1892,  since  which  date 
analysis  of  the  Commissioners'  tables  of  accidents  is  impos- 
sible. A  really  analytical  table  should  be  easy  to  construct 
from  the  returns  in  the  hands  of  the  Board ;  and  such  a  table 
would  be  immensely  more  valuable  for  any  purpose  of  study 
or  comparison  than  the  present  unscientific  compilation. 


90  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

TABLE  V — ACCIDENTS  TO  RAILWAY  EMPLOYEES  IN  IOWA,  1878-1906^^^ 


m 

w 

H 

(A 

go 

S  P  to 
D  °  ?^ 

o 

O 

T  P  to 

ti  w  w 

^ 

S 

S 

^  2  « 

"  a  s' 

H 

w 

H  A 

M  M  » 

lUMBER 
FOR    EAC 
AND    EM] 

<! 

i 

93^ 

UMBER 
EACH    T 
EMPLOY 

t^ 

^ 

\z, 

z 

Z 

Ai 

1878 

13,518 

40331 

137 

2.91 

11.48 

1879 

15,341 

42 

111332 

2.74 

7.25 

1880 

18,985 

45333 

140 

2.37 

7.37 

1881 

21,974 

68334 

148334 

2.09 

6.73 

1882 

17,273 

89 

502 

5.14 

29.17 

1883 

27,112 

82 

255 

3.04 

9.44 

1884 

26,731 

72 

343 

2.7 

12.85 

1885 

25,666 

72 

720 

2.80 

28.02 

1886 

25,761 

61 

336 

2.36 

13.02 

1887 

29,088 

59 

354 

2.04 

12.21 

1888 

20,794 

101 

564 

4.85 

27.11 

1889 

24,642 

61335 

485335 

2.48 

19.62 

1890 

24,351 

73 

579 

3.04 

24.12 

1891 

27,589 

82 

601 

2.97 

21.77 

1892 

30,192 

80 

587336 

2.66 

19.56 

1893 

31,127 

81 

682 

2.61 

22 

1894 

29,308 

48 

367 

1.64 

12.6 

1895 

24,107 

47 

330 

1.96 

13.75 

1896 

28,165 

36 

411 

1.29 

14.68 

1897 

26,690 

40 

291 

1.50 

10.82 

1898 

30,009 

44 

301 

1.46 

10.03 

1899 

32,385 

62 

348 

1.91 

10.74 

1900 

37,696 

70 

449 

1.86 

12.17 

1901 

37,836 

65 

636 

1.72 

16.82 

1902 

40,636 

64 

853 

1.57 

21.09 

1903 

42,484 

100 

1001 

2.35 

23.52 

1904 

38,508 

90 

1419 

2.34 

36.85 

1905 

39,586 

74 

1376 

1.87 

34.75 

1906 

42,554 

80 

1592 

1.88 

37.45 

Total, 

1878-1906 

1928 

15918 

BAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  91 


YEARLY  AVERAGE 


1878-1906        28,624 

66.5 

549 

2.33 

19.2 

YEARLY  AVERAGE 

1878-1889        22,240 

66 

341 

3 

15.5 

YEARLY  AVERAGE 

1890-1900        29,238 

60 

449 

2 

15.5 

YEARLY  AVERAGE 

1901-1906        40,267 

79 

1149 

1.97 

28.6 

Table  V  exhibits  the  number  of  accidents  to  railway  em- 
ployees in  Iowa,  and  also  the  number  of  deaths  and  injuries 
per  thousand  employees  for  each  year  from  1878  to  1906 
inclusive.  The  summaries  show  the  annual  average  for  the 
same  periods  as  those  of  tables  II  and  III.  The  division  into 
three  periods  is  determined,  as  will  be  remembered,  by  the 
fact  that  the  safety  appliance  law  was  passed  in  1890  and 
became  fully  operative  only  in  1900.  In  view  of  this  law  it 
is  noteworthy  that  while  the  number  of  deaths  yearly  from 
coupling  cars  is  much  less  and  that  from  falling  from  trains 
likewise  somewhat  less  for  the  period  1901-1906  than  for  either 
of  the  earlier  periods,  yet  the  average  number  of  deaths  from 
aU  causes  is  actually  greatest  for  the  later  years.  The  annual 
fatality  per  thousand  employees  from  all  causes  is  two-thirds 
as  great  for  the  years  1901-1906  as  for  the  years  1878-1889; 
that  from  falling  from  trains  is  but  one-half  and  from  cou- 
pling cars  but  one-fourth  as  large.  A  comparison  of  the  col- 
umns of  injuries  in  the  three  tables  gives  somewhat  analogous 
results.  It  would  appear  from  these  facts  that  the  safety  ap- 
pliance law  has  been  successful  in  diminishing  the  number  of 
accidents  from  specific  causes,  but  that  it  has  not  had  the 
effect  which  had  been  expected  upon  the  whole  number  of 
railway  casualties. 

If  the  Eailroad  Commissioners'  reports  are  to  be  trusted 
the  number  of  non-fatal  injuries  to  railway  employees  is  in- 
creasing both  absolutely  and  relatively.  A  part  of  this  in- 
crease may  be  due  to  the  greater  completeness  of  the  returns 
in  recent  years.  Whether  all  of  it  can  be  so  explained  is 
uncertain. 


92  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  protection  of  railway  employees  is  a  function  naturally 
devolving  upon  the  Federal  government,  since  railways  are 
almost  without  exception  engaged  in  interstate  commerce. 
Accordingly,  since  the  national  railway  safety  appliance  act 
became  operative,  the  State  laws  relating  to  the  same  subject 
have  been  important  chiefly  as  supplementing  the  Federal 
statutes.  Considered  in  this  light  the  Iowa  law  would  seem 
to  require  amendment  so  as  to  cover  grab-irons,  sill  steps, 
frog-blocks,  and  other  appliances  for  the  protection  of  train- 
men. 

VESTIBULES    ON    STREET    CARS 

In  the  early  days  of  the  trolley  car  the  operator  was  com- 
pelled to  stand  on  an  open  platform  exposed  to  every  extreme 
of  weather  and  thereby  not  only  endangered  his  own  health, 
but  incapacitated  himself  at  times  for  the  efficient  perform- 
ance of  his  duty.  Laws  were  accordingly  passed  in  many 
States  requiring  enclosed  vestibules  on  street  cars  during  the 
winter  months,  and  were  upheld  both  as  necessary  for  the 
l^rotection  of  street  railway  employees  and  as  conducing  to 
the  public  safety.^^'^ 

The  first  Iowa  law  upon  this  subject  was  enacted  in  1897, 
and  required  all  street  cars,  except  trailers,  to  be  provided 
"with  vestibules  inclosing  the  front  platform  on  at  least 
three^^^  sides",  from  November  first  of  each  year  to  April 
first  following.^^^  The  obvious  intent  of  the  statute  was  to 
secure  the  inclosure  of  the  vestibule  upon  the  three  outer  or 
exposed  sides.  But  certain  street  railway  companies,  with 
characteristic  ingenuity,  cut  off  the  vestibule  from  the  body 
of  the  car,  leaving  one  side  of  the  former  open.^**^  Such  eva- 
sion of  the  law  was  made  impossible  by  an  act  passed  in  1907, 
which  changed  "three"  to  "all"  sides.^*^ 

The  vestibule  law,  as  amended,  secures  a  fair  protection 
against  cold.  But  there  is  no  requirement  that  the  rear  plat- 
form of  street  cars  shall  be  enclosed,  or  that  vestibules  shall 
be  heated  during  the  winter  months,  or  that  any  shelter  what- 
ever shall  be  provided  for  the  operator  from  April  to  Novem- 


RAILWAY  LABOR  LEGISLATION  93 

ber.  Nor  are  there  wanting  street  railway  companies  who 
will  not  go  beyond  the  strict  letter  of  the  law  in  providing  for 
the  health  and  comfort  of  their  employees. 

Even  more  objectionable  than  the  open  platform  is  the  side 
running  board  extensively  used  on  summer  cars.  Cars  thus 
equipped  have  no  center  aisle ;  consequently  the  conductor,  in 
collecting  fares,  has  to  pass  from  one  end  to  the  other  of 
a  moving  car  upon  a  narrow  foot  board,  at  considerable  risk 
of  life  and  limb. 

A  bill  aimed  at  the  evils  just  recited  was  introduced  in  the 
last  General  Assembly  (1907)  but  was  adversely  reported  in 
both  Houses  and  never  came  to  a  vote.^*^  Lack  of  organiza- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  street  railway  employees  in  certain 
cities  was  a  large  factor  in  defeating  the  bill,  which  had  also 
the  active  opposition  of  the  street  railways  themselves.^*^ 
The  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor  at  its  last  annual  convention 
(1908)  again  adopted  resolutions  demanding  such  legisla- 
tion.^** 

MECHANICS^  LIENS  ON  RAILWAYS 

As  early  as  1851  the  benefits  of  the  mechanics'  lien  laws 
were  extended  ''to  persons  furnishing  labor  or  materials  for 
the  construction  of  any  bridge,  railroad,  or  other  work  of 
internal  improvement  in  the  same  manner  as  though  such 
work  were  a  building  ".^*^  This  provision,  with  many  changes 
of  form,  has  ever  since  been  retained  upon  our  statute  books,^*^ 

Under  the  law  of  1851  the  lien  upon  works  of  internal 
imjDrovement  attached  to  "the  whole  work  and  its  appurte- 
nances together  with  all  the  real  or  personal  property  con- 
nected therewith"."*''  This  very  broad  scope  was  limited  in 
1860  to  "the  building,  erection,  or  improvement,  and  the  land 
on  which  the  same  is  situated ".^*^  In  1872  the  lien  was  bind- 
ing ' '  upon  the  erection,  excavation,  embankment,  bridge,  road- 
bed, or  right-of-way,  and  upon  all  land  upon  which  the  same 
may  be  situated ".^*^  Railway  rolling-stock  had  been  held  not 
to  be  included  within  the  property  subject  to  mechanics'  lien 
under  the  law  of  1860  ;^^^  presumably  it  fell  without  the  terms 


94  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

of  that  of  1872  as  welL  But  in  1876  rolling-stock  was  ex- 
pressly made  subject  to  the  lien  upon  railways ;3^^  and  ''other 
equipment"  was  added  in  1897.^^2  tj^^  j-^^^  attaches  to  the 
entire  road  for  work  done  or  material  furnished  on  any  part 
of  it.353 


VI 
FACTORY  LAWS 

Prior  to  the  year  1900  there  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
any  careful  investigation  of  the  sanitary  conditions  and  the 
safeguards  for  life  and  limb  in  Iowa  factories.  Between  June 
of  that  year  and  the  following  February,  Commissioner  of 
Labor  Wennerstrum  inspected  three  hundred  and  twenty-eight 
establishments  employing  five  or  more  persons  each.^^*  Of 
this  number  ninety-eight  contained  unguarded  machinery  en- 
dangering the  lives  of  operatives ;  seventeen  had  open  elevator 
wells ;  one  hundred  and  thirty-five  were  without  proper  water- 
closet  ac<iommodations ;  one  hundred  and  thirteen  were  poorly 
or  indifferently  ventilated;  and  a  few  were  otherwise  unsan- 
itary. Ninety  establishments — 27.4  per  cent  of  those  inves- 
tigated— ^were  in  a  satisfactory  condition,  ten  being  models 
of  their  kind.^^^  The  places  inspected  were  believed  to  be  rep- 
resentative. If  so,  nearly  three-fourths — certainly  more  than 
two-thirds — of  the  4,828  factories  in  lowa^^^  fell  below  a 
reasonable  standard  of  safety  and  comfort.  Conditions  were 
worst  in  the  smaller  plants  and  in  those  which  had  outgrown 
their  original  accommodations.^^''' 

Conditions  such  as  those  found  in  Iowa  in  1900  often  occur 
in  an  era  of  rapid  industrial  expansion.  Provision  for  the 
welfare  of  employees  may  pay  in  the  long  run,  but  it  requires 
considerable  outlay  and  does  not  at  once  show  in  increased 
profits.  Hence,  employers  are  slow  to  make  such  provision 
unless  forced  to  do  so  by  legal  authority. 

To  correct  some  of  the  evils  revealed  in  Commissioner 
Wennerstrum 's  report,  Senator  Maytag  introduced  a  bill  in 
the  Twenty-ninth  General  Assembly  (1902)  "to  provide  for 
the  safety  and  comfort  of  laborers  and  other  persons  assem- 


96  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

bled  in  factories  and  buildings  ".^^^  This  bill  encountered 
little  opposition  and  passed  both  Houses  without  serious 
amendment.'^^    Its  leading  features  are  discussed  below. 

PROTECTION    OF   LIFE   AND   LIMB 
GUARDS  ON  DANGEROUS  MACHINERY 

The  act  of  1902  makes  it  the  "duty  of  the  owner  or  other 
person  having  charge  of  any  manufacturing  or  other  estab- 
lishment where  machinery  is  used,  to  furnish  ....  belt 
shifters  or  other  safe  mechanical  contrivances  for  the  pur- 
pose of  throwing  belts  on  and  off  pulleys,  and,  Whenever  pos- 
sible, machinery  therein  shall  be  provided  with  loose  pulleys; 
all  saws,  planers,  cogs,  gearing,  belting,  shafting,  set  screws 
and  machinery  of  every  description  therein  shall  be  properly 
guarded  ".^^^ 

Between  July,  1902,  when  the  law  went  into  operation, 
and  October,  1906,  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  issued  1,593 
orders  for  the  better  safeguarding  of  machinery.  Of  these, 
461  were  for  removing  or  covering  set  screws,  and  120  were 
for  safety  devices  on  elevators.^*^^ 

Before  the  passage  of  the  factor}'  law  the  safeguarding  of 
freight  and  passenger  elevators  in  factories  and  stores  was 
very  much  neglected.  Many  of  the  lifts  in  use  were  of  anti- 
quated construction  and  were  wholly  innocent  of  automatic 
gates,  safety  clutches,  and  self-closing  hatches.  The  elevator 
wells  were  often  uncovered,  or  even  unenclosed,  and  the  doors 
leading  to  them  habitually  left  open.^^^  Elevators  are  not 
expressly  within  the  statute,  but  are  rightly  held  to  be  within 
the  provision  respecting  ''machinery  of  every  description". 
The  Commissioner's  recommendations  concerning  them  have 
generally  been  complied  with,  though  there  is  still  plenty  of 
room  for  improvement. 

Safeguards  on  all  dangerous  machinery  are  frequently  re- 
moved by  operatives,  for  whose  protection  they  were  pro- 
vided but  who  find  them  inconvenient  in  their  work.  Some- 
times guards   are  taken  off  while  the  machinery  is  being 


FACTORY  LAWS  97 

cleaned,  and  are  not  replaced  when  work  is  resumed.  The 
Commissioner  of  Labor  has  twice  asked  for  legislation  to 
stop  this  practice,^^^  and  a  bill  looking  to  that  end  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Thirty-second  General  Assembly,  but  after  re- 
peated references  and  amendments  was  allowed  to  die  in  the 
Senate  Sifting  Committee.^^^ 

Ever  since  1866  there  has  been  a  provision  upon  the  stat- 
ute books  of  Iowa  for  the  proper  enclosing  of  tumbling  rods 
upon  horse-power  threshing  machines.^^^  Such  a  law  long  ago 
outlived  its  usefulness,  whereas  needed  legislation  respecting 
steam  threshers,  corn-shredders,  and  saw  mills  has  never  been 
provided. 

Owing  to  imperfect  reports  it  is  impossible  to  state  what 
has  been  the  effect  of  compulsory  safeguards  for  dangerous 
machinery  in  reducing  the  number  of  injuries  to  operatives. 
But  a  considerable  reduction  has  undoubtedly  been  effected, 
and  larger  results  will  follow  the  complete  enforcement  of 
the  law.26° 

BOn.ER  INSPECTION 

An  act  passed  in  1874  and  still  in  force  makes  it  ''the 
duty  of  any  person  owning  or  operating  steam  boilers  .... 
to  provide  such  boilers  with  steam-gauge,  safety-valve,  and 
water-gauge  and  keep  the  same  in  good  order ' '  and  prescribes 
a  penalty  of  not  less  than  fifty  nor  more  than  five  hundred 
dollars  for  each  violation.^^^  Another  act,  dating  from  1882, 
empowers  cities  and  towns  to  provide  for  the  inspection  of 
steam  boiiers.-^^^ 

Neither  of  these  laws  seems  ever  to  have  been  enforced. 
Cities  have  made  no  effective  use  of  their  power  of  inspection 
and  boiler  owners  have  been  allowed  to  do  as  they  please  in 
the  matter  of  safeguards.  Large  manufacturers  generally 
insure  their  boilers,  in  which  case  the  underwriter  provides 
efi&cient  inspection.  But  there  are  hundreds  of  uninsured 
steam  boilers  in  the  State,  the  owners  of  which  often  neglect 
the  most  ordinary  precautions  for  sa^fety.  Not  only  rusted 
flues  and  leaky  crowns,  but  incompetent  firemen  and  engineers 


98  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

contribute  to  the  annual  list  of  explosions.  Worst  of  all  are 
the  traction  engines  used  for  small  saw  mills  and  threshing 
machines.^*^^ 

A  defective  or  improperly  managed  steam  boiler  is  so 
dangerous  to  life  that  the  need  for  compulsory  inspection  of 
boilers  and  for  State  certification  of  stationary  engineers  and 
firemen  is  obvious.  It  should  be  possible  to  frame  a  law  in 
the  interest  of  public  safety  that  would  not  work  substantial 
injustice  to  boiler  owners.  Hitherto,  however,  all  attempts 
at  legislation  have  failed  largely  because  the  various  inter- 
ests affected  have  been  unable  to  reconcile  their  differences. 
Four  boiler  inspection  bills  were  introduced  at  the  last  ses- 
sion of  the  General  Assembly  (1907).^'^^  None  of  them  ever 
got  beyond  committee.^'^^  The  boiler  maker's  brotherhood 
had  asked  for  a  separate  department,  supported  by  the  State 
Treasury — a  demand  not  likely  to  be  listened  to  by  a  "reform- 
ing" legislature.  On  the  other  hand,  a  bill  making  the  boiler 
inspectors  subordinate  to  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Sta- 
tistics was  not  warmly  supported  by  the  brotherhood  most 
interested.  The  manufacturers'  association  objected  to  State 
inspection  of  insured  boilers,  while  the  thresher-men  and  saw- 
mill owners  were  opposed  to  any  legislation. ^^^ 

FIRE     ESCAPES 

Prior  to  1882  there  was  no  legal  requirement  of  means  of 
egress  from  any  building  in  case  of  fire.  In  that  year  incor- 
porated cities  and  towns  were  empowered  "to  require  and 
regulate  the  construction  of  fire  escapes  ".^'^^  Six  years  later 
the  same  authority  was  given  to  the  boards  of  public  works  in 
cities  having  a  population  of  thirty  thousand  or  more.^^* 

These  powers,  at  least  as  respects  factories,  the  local  au- 
thorities did  not  see  fit  to  exercise.  Of  two  hundred  and 
ninety  factories,  two  or  more  stories  in  height,  visited  by  the 
Commissioner  of  Labor  in  1900,  but  twenty  were  equipped 
with  any  sort  of  fire  escape,  and  some  of  those  provided  were 
"very  primitive".  In  a  large  number  of  factories  the  doors 
opened  in,  so  as  to  prevent  speedy  exit  in  case  of  a  fire;  and 


FACTORY  LAWS  99 

in  some  there  were  locked  gates  in  the  stairways  rendering 
escape  almost  impossible.  Workmen  jumping  from  the  third 
or  fourth  stories  would  in  many  cases  have  encountered  a  net- 
work of  wires  in  the  street  or  alley  below.^'^^ 

The  first  serious  effort  of  the  legislature  to  deal  with  the 
question  of  fire  escapes  was  made  in  1902.  The  act  of  that 
year  requires  the  owner,  proprietor,  or  lessee  of  every  manu- 
factory, warehouse,  store,  or  office  building,  three  or  more 
stories  in  height,  if  not  more  than  twenty  persons  are  em- 
ployed therein,  to  provide  the  same  with  at  least  one  ladder 
of  steel  or  wrought-iron  construction  attached  to  the  outer 
wall  of  the  building  and  provided  with  platforms  of  similar 
material  at  each  story,  for  each  five  thousand  square  feet  or 
fractional  part  thereof  covered  by  the  building.  If  more  than 
twenty  persons  are  employed,  there  must  be  two  fire  escape 
ladders,  or  one  fire  escape  stairway;  if  the  number  of  em- 
ployees exceeds  forty,  there  must  be  two  such  stairways,  or 
such  number  as  the  chief  of  the  fire  department,  or  the  mayor 
of  the  city  shall  from  time  to  time  determine. ^'^^ 

The  enforcement  of  the  act  of  1902  was  again  entrusted  to 
the  local  authorities,  and  they  for  the  most  part  continued 
their  old  policy  of  inaction.  The  Commissioner  of  Labor  was 
authorized  by  a  separate  act  of  the  same  G-eneral  Assembly 
to  notify  the  owner  or  persons  in  charge  of  any  factory  or 
building  of  any  neglect  to  comply  with  the  law  in  respect  to 
fire  escapes,^'^'^  but  he  was  powerless  to  enforce  compliance.^'^^ 
In  some  instances  the  Commissioner  secured  the  co-operation 
of  the  local  fire  chief  in  giving  effect  to  the  law;  in  other 
eases  such  co-operation  was  flatly  refused.^"^^ 

Some  of  the  defects  of  the  fire  escape  law  of  1902  were 
remedied  at  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  (1904).  By 
the  act  then  passed  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  was  giv^en 
equal  authority  with  the  fire  chief,  mayor,  or  chairman  of  the 
County  Board  of  Supervisors  to  adopt  uniform  specifications 
for  fire  escapes  and  to  require  buildings  three  or  more  stories 
in  height  to  be  equipped  in  accordance  with  such  specifica- 


100  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

tions.  Failure  to  comply  with  such  request  within  sixty  days 
after  receipt  of  written  notice  is  punishable  by  fine  of  not  less 
than  fifty,  nor  more  than  one  hundred  dollars,  and  there  is  a 
further  penalty  of  twenty-five  dollars  for  each  additional  week 
of  delay.  Fire  escapes  are  subject  to  the  inspection  and  ap- 
proval or  rejection  in  writing  of  the  Commissioner  as  well 
as  of  the  other  persons  above  named. ^^^ 

The  power  thus  granted  to  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  has 
been  effectively  used  where  local  authorities  were  negligent, 
so  that  compliance  with  the  law  is  now  quite  general.  It  is 
evident,  however,  that  a  ladder  fire  escape,  such  as  is  now 
pennitted  for  all  establishments  not  having  more  than  forty 
employees,  can  never  be  satisfactory  where  women  and  girls 
are  employed.  Many  factories  still  have  doors  opening  in, 
and  there  is  no  law  to  prevent  this.  No  fire  escape  whatever 
is  required  for  two  story  buildings,  though  few  men  and  no 
woman  can  jump  from  a  second  story  window  without  grave 
risk.  Comparison  of  Iowa's  fire  escape  law  with  such  a  stat- 
ute as  that  of  New  York  shows  the  great  need  for  improve- 
ment in  this  State. 

REPORT    OF    ACCIDENTS 

The  act  establishing  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  made 
it  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  *'to  compile  and  publish 
.  .  .  .  the  number  and  character  of  accidents  ".^^^  The 
law  is  still  the  same."^-  But,  except  for  partial  reports  of 
railway  accidents,  the  provision  remained  practically  inop- 
erative for  eighteen  years. 

The  first  attempt  to  gather  statistics  of  accidents  in  fac- 
tories, shops,  and  outside  work  in  Iowa,  was  made  by  the 
present  Commissioner  of  Labor,  Mr.  E.  D.  Brigham.  The 
results  of  his  efforts  are  exhibited  in  the  following  table: 


FACTORY  LAWS  101 

ACCIDENTS   KEPORTED    TO    THE   IOWA    COMMISSIONER    OF    LABOR 

NUMBER    OP    ACCIDENTS 


§ 

> 

-«! 

^ 

>< 

XBl 

b* 

►J 

M 

?! 

M 

H 

'3. 

^ 

>j 

^ 

1 

o 

•z, 

< 
1 

2; 
o 

33 

41 

750 

791 

23.94 

15 

16 

191 

207 

13.75 

12 

11 

1662 

1673 

139.41 

Dec.  1,  1900,  to  Oct.  1,  1903, 
Oct.  1,  1903,  to  Jan.  1,  1905, 
Jan.  1, 1905,  to  Jan.  1,  1906, 

The  extreme  fluctuations  in  the  monthly  average  of  acci- 
dents shown  by  this  table  sufficiently  prove  the  inadequacy  of 
the  reports.  The  very  great  increase  for  the  year  1905  in- 
dicates only  that  far  more  complete  returns  were  secured  for 
that  year.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  trustworthy  results  can 
never  be  given  by  the  present  method  of  annual  or  biennial 
reports  on  statistical  blanks.  Accordingly,  the  Commissioner 
of  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  has  repeatedly  asked 
that  employers  be  required  to  report  all  fatal  or  disabling  acci- 
dents at  their  respective  places  of  employment,  immediately 
after  their  occurrence."^^"  Bills  for  such  a  law  were  introduced 
in  both  the  Thirty-first  and  Thirty-second  General  Assemblies, 
but  failed  to  pass.^^* 

A  trustworthy  record  of  industrial  casualties  would  be 
extremely  valuable  as  a  guide  for  further  legislation  to  lessen 
the  hazard  of  employment.  Moreover,  the  requirement  of 
a  prompt  report  of  accidents,  with  the  possibility  of  an  official 
investigation  to  follow,  would  of  itself  make  employers  much 
more  careful  in  safeguarding  human  life. 

PROTECTION   OF  HEALTH  IN  FACTORIES  AND  STORES 
SEATS     FOR     PEMAIiE   EMPLOYEES 

To  be  compelled  to  stand  continuously  for  ten  or  twelve 
hours  day  after  day  is  a  menace  to  the  health  of  any  young 
woman  or  girl.  Accordingly,  most  States  in  the  Union  re- 
quire employers  to  furnish  seats  for  their  female  employees.^^^ 


102         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  Iowa  law  was  enacted  in  1892.  Its  principal  section  pro- 
vides: "That  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  all  employers  of  females 
in  any  mercantile  or  manufacturing  business  or  occupation  to 
provide  and  maintain  suitable  seats,  when  practicable,  for  the 
use  of  such  female  employees,  at  or  beside  the  counter  or  work- 
bench where  employed,  and  to  permit  the  use  of  such  seats  by 
such  employees  to  such  an  extent  as  the  work  engaged  in  may 
reasonably  admit  of."^^^ 

A  fine  not  to  exceed  ten  dollars  was  imposed  for  each  offense, 
and  the  county  attorney  was  required  to  prosecute  all  viola- 
tions upon  the  filing  of  information  by  any  citizen.  Compli- 
ance with  this  law  was  largely  voluntary  for  the  first  ten 
years  of  its  existence.  Citizens  rarely  filed  informations,  and 
county  attorneys  were  not  inclined  to  begin  prosecutions  on 
their  own  initiative.  Many  employers  did  provide  seats  as 
required,  and  a  few  were  forced  to  do  so  by  humane  societies 
or  other  benevolent  organizations.  Since  1902  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Labor  has  had  authority  to  enforce  the  law.^^'^  In- 
spection of  factories  and  stores  within  the  past  five  years  (1902 
to  1907)  has  greatly  diminished  the  number  of  violations. 
Even  now,  however,  compliance  with  the  law  is  not  all  that 
could  be  desired.  In  a  good  many,  if  not  most,  department 
stores  the  "suitable  seats"  provided  are  comfortless  bracket 
stools  attached  to  the  counter.  In  some  stores  even  these  are 
wanting ;  and  in  still  others,  girls  are  not  allowed  to  sit  down 
at  all  during  working  hours.  A  large  number  of  factory  girls 
sit  at  their  work,  but  where  the  nature  of  their  employment 
does  not  admit  of  this  they  often  have  no  resting  places  but 
packing  boxes  and  window  ledges. ^^^ 

Vigorous  action  on  the  part  of  the  Labor  Commissioner  and 
his  deputies  has  brought  about  a  marked  improvement  in  ex- 
isting conditions,  as  compared  with  those  of  a  few  years  ago. 
Nevertheless  the  subject  of  water-closet  accommodations  con- 
tinues to  be  a  troublesome  .one.  An  earth  closet  or  privy 
satisfies  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  more  than  one-third 
of  the  establishments  inspected  in  the  biennial  period  (1903- 


FACTORY  LAWS  103 

1905)  had  no  other.  It  is  clear  that  such  closets  can  never  be 
sanitary  when  used  by  any  considerable  number  of  persons. 
Privies,  moreover,  are  usually  detached  out-buildings — an  es- 
pecially undesirable  feature  where  these  places  must  be  used 
by  women. 

DISPOSAL  OF  DUST 

The  Factory  Act  of  1902  requires  that  emery  wheels  or 
emery  belts  of  every  description  and  tumbling  barrels  used  for 
polishing  castings  shall  be  provided  with  blowers  and  pipes 
to  carry  away  all  particles  of  dust  directly  to  the  outside  of 
the  building  or  to  some  receptacle.  From  this  requirement 
are  excepted  grinding  machines  upon  which  water  is  used  at 
the  point  of  grinding  contact  and  small  emery  wheels  used 
temporarily  for  tool  grinding.  The  Conunissioner  of  Labor 
is  authorized  to  further  exempt  shops  employing  not  more 
than  one  man  at  such  work.^^^ 

The  work  of  grinding,  buflfing,  and  polishing  minerals  gives 
rise  to  a  very  injurious  dust  which  can  be  almost  wholly  obvi- 
ated by  proper  ventilating  hoods.  Such  hoods  are  hardly  less 
necessary  for  many  kinds  of  wood  working  machines,  though 
these  are  not  included  within  the  terms  of  the  statute.  Some 
manufacturers  voluntarily  provide  blowers  and  pipes  for  all 
dust-producing  work,  but  many  others  will  never  make  such 
provision  unless  forced  to  do  so. 

HEAT,   LIGHT,   AND   VENTILATION 

The  Labor  Commissioner  reported  in  1901  that  the  means 
for  heating  in  the  wood  working  establishments  and  iron 
foundries  were  usually  very  inadequate.  In  dozens  of  shops 
where  iron  work  was  being  carried  on  there  was  no  provision 
whatever  for  heating,  the  men  depending  wholly  upon  the  heat 
from  furnaces  and  forges.  In  some  large  box  factories  and 
planing  mills,  where  there  was  not  even  a  stove,  the  workmen 
suffered  severely  from  the  cold.^^^  These  conditions  still 
largely  prevail,  no  effort  having  ever  been  made  to  correct 
them  bv  law. 


104         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  subject  of  proper  light  and  ventilation  for  factories 
has  never  received  in  Iowa  the  attention  it  deserves.  Some  of 
the  newest  establishments  have  high,  airy  work  rooms,  with 
white-washed  walls,  large  windows,  and  excellent  artificial 
ventilation.  But  most  of  the  older  factories  have  low  ceilings, 
small  windows,  and  dark,  sometimes  damp,  interiors.  Natural 
ventilation  through  cracks  or  other  accidental  openings  is 
commonly  the  only  means  of  suppljdng  fresh  air  to  operatives. 
Conditions  are  probably  worst  in  iron  works.  In  these  estab- 
lishments furnaces,  forges,  and  anvils  produce  a  combination 
of  smoke  and  fumes,  injurious  alike  to  eyes  and  lungs.  The 
cupolas  and  hoods  necessary  to  carry  off  the  fumes  are  expen- 
sive and,  not  being  required  by  law,  are  seldom  furnished  by 
the  manufacturer.  The  writer  has  visited  more  than  one 
large  foundry  where  the  smoke  was  so  thick  that  it  was  diffi- 
cult to  see  across  the  work  room  on  a  winter  day. 

BAKESHOPS 

There  were  in  Iowa  in  1905  three  hundred  and  sixty-five 
bakeries,  with  more  than  one  thousand  wage  earners  and  an 
annual  product  worth  more  than  three  million  six  hundred 
thousand  dollars.^^^  Most  of  these  establishments  are  in  good 
sanitary  condition,  many  of  the  larger  ones,  especially,  being 
models  of  their  kind.  But  there  are  a  few  extremely  bad  ex- 
ceptions. Underground  bakeshops,  dark  and  unwholesome, 
are  found  in  certain  cities.  Sleeping  apartments  in  some  of 
the  small  shops  are  not  separate  from  the  bread  room.  Flour 
is  not  always  kept  in  vermin  proof  receptacles.  Water  closets 
with  no  outside  ventilation  are  sometimes  built  into  the  bake 
rooms,  and  at  least  one  case  was  investigated  by  the  factory 
inspector  where  the  drain  was  out  of  order  and  sewage  run- 
ning over  the  floor  within  a  few  feet  of  the  mixing  board.^^'* 

It  is  to  correct  just  such  conditions  as  these  that  bakeshop 
laws  have  been  enacted  in  many  of  the  older  Commonwealths. 
An  excellent  bill,  modeled  on  the  legislation  of  other  States, 
was  introduced  at  the  session  of  the  G-eneral  Assembly  in 
1907,   but    was   killed    by   the   House    Committee   on   Public 


PER 

CENT  INCREASE 

1895 

1900 

1900 

1905 

1905 

1905 

194 

365 

88.1 

1,301,902 

1,581,911 

215.2 

21.5 

846 

1,061 

45.5 

25.4 

2,673,788 

3,610,967 

143.8 

34.6 

FACTORY  LAWS  105 

Health.^^^  The  question  is  one  which  is  certain  to  come  up 
again  at  future  meetings  of  the  legislature.  State  regulations 
and  inspection  should  be  welcomed  by  the  master  bakers,  most 
of  whom  are  already  endeavoring  to  maintain  wholesome  con- 
ditions and  who  should  not  be  subjected  to  the  unfair  com- 
petition of  those  who  do  not. 

The  baking  industry  is  growing  very  rapidly  in  Iowa,  as 
shown  in  the  following  table  r^^*^ 


1895 
Number  of  establishments 

Capital  invested 501,570 

Number  of  Wage-earners  729 

Value  of  Product 1,480,848 

Notwithstanding  the  great  development  of  the  past  ten 
years  the  bakers  even  now  serve  but  a  small  proportion  of  the 
families  living  in  cities  and  towns.  Nothing  would  more  con- 
duce to  the  future  growth  of  the  business  of  bread  making 
than  public  confidence  in  the  wholesomeness  of  bakery 
products. 

FACTORY  INSPECTION  AND  ENFORCEMENT  OF  FACTORY  LAWS 
FACTORY   INSPECTION 

An  act  passed  in  1896  empowered  the  Commissioner  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  "upon  the  complaint  of  two  or 
more  persons,  or  upon  his  failure  to  otherwise  obtain  infor- 
mation ....  to  enter  any  factory  or  mill,  workshop, 
mine,  store,  business  house,  public  or  private  work  .... 
where  five  or  more  wage  earners  are  employed.  "^^^  Little  use 
was  made  of  this  power  until  the  accession  in  1900  of  Com- 
missioner Wennerstrum,  who  secured  an  opinion  from  the 
Attorney  General  to  the  effect  that  he  was  authorized  to  make 
personal  inspection  whenever  he  might  deem  the  information 
obtained  by  correspondence  unsatisfactory.^^^  In  accordance 
with  this  opinion  the  work  of  factory  inspection  was  begun  in 
1900.    Its  progress  to  date  is  exhibited  in  the  accompanying 


106         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

table,   showing  the  number  of  establishments  inspected  by 
biennial  periods. ^^^ 

DATE  OF  INSPECTION  NUMBER    INSPECTED 

1900  328 

1901-1902  318 

1903-1904  869 

1905 1,029 

1906-1907   1,080 

Inasmuch  as  there  are  in  Iowa  about  four  thousand  eight 
hundred  factories  employing  five  or  more  persons,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  the  work  of  inspection  is  still  very  incompletely 
performed.  An  increasing  proportion  of  the  Commissioner's 
time  is  necessarily  taken  up  with  office  duties,  and  before  1904 
he  had  but  a  single  deputy .^^^  In  the  last  mentioned  year  he 
was  allowed,  besides  his  deputy,  a  factory  inspector  and  a 
clerk.^^^  Two  men  now  devote  their  entire  time  to  field  work. 
With  these  additions  the  Bureau's  force  is  still  manifestly 
too  small.  Two  men  can  not  adequately  cover  so  large  a  ter- 
ritory as  Iowa. 

PROVISIONS  FOR  ENFORCEMENT 

Section  four  of  the  factory  act  of  1902  provides  that  ''It 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor 
of  the  State,  and  the  mayor,  and  chief  of  police  of  every  city 
or  town,  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  the  foregoing  sections. 
Any  person,  whether  acting  for  himself  or  for  another  or  for 
a  co-partnership,  joint  stock  company  or  corporation,  having 
charge  or  management  of  any  manufacturing  establishment, 
workshop  or  hotel,  who  shall  fail  to  comply  with  the  provi- 
sions of  the  said  sections  within  ninety  days  after  being  noti- 
mine,  store,  business  house,  public  or  private  work  .... 
shall  be  punished  by  a  fine  not  exceeding  one  hundred  dollars 

or  by  imprisonment  in  the  county  jail  not  exceeding  thirty 
days.  "402 

Another  act  passed  the  same  year  provides  that  "If  the 
commissioner  of  labor  shall  learn  of  any  violation  of,  or  neg- 
lect to  comply  with  the  law  in  respect  to  fire  escapes,  or  the 


FACTOEY  LAWS  107 

safety  of  employes,  or  for  the  preservation  of  health,  he  shall 
give  written  notice  to  the  owner  or  person  in  charge  of  such 
factory  or  building,  of  such  offense  or  neglect,  and  if  the  same 
is  not  remedied  within  sixty  days  after  service  of  such  notice, 
such  officer  shall  give  the  county  attorney  of  the  county  in 
which  such  factory  or  building  is  situated,  written  notice  of 
the  facts,  whereupon  that  officer  shall  immediately  institute 
the  proper  proceedings  against  the  person  guilty  of  such 
offense  or  neglect. '  '*^^ 

THE  LABOR  COMMISSIONER'S  RECOMMENDATIONS 

The  accompanying  table  gives  a  classified  summary  of  2,604 
recommendations  to  employers  issued  by  the  State  Bureau 
of  Labor  in  pursuance  of  the  foregoing  acts  within  the  period 
1901-1905:^0* 

THE  COMMISSIONER  OP  LABOR 's  RECOMMENDATIONS  TO  EMPLOYERS 

1901-1902       1903-1904  1905        AGGREGATE 

g  g  g  g 

^  U  %  % 

CLASS   OF  RECOMMENDATION  g  §  i  § 

Doors,  change  to  swing  outward. .  3           3                              3          3 

Dust  collectors,  provide 41       20         68         68       19       19       128       107 

Elevators,  provide  safeguards  for  21       13         61         61       38       38       120       112 

Fire    escapes,    erect 200       45           6           6         9         9       215         60 

Fire  protection,  repair  roof 11                                                      11 

Floors,    repair   and    clean 3         2           7           7         7         7         17         16 

Guards,  place  on  dangerous  ma- 
chinery       55       33       569       564     341     341       965       938 

Heat  and  ventilation,  provide.  ..11  11 

Insulating  mats  for  switchboards  5           5         5         5         10         10 

Locks,  remove  to  permit  egress  ..11  11 
Loose    pulleys    and    belt   shifters, 

provide    25         24       12       12         37         36 

Machinery,  stop  operation  of,  by 

children     7          1           9           9         3         3         11         13 

Machinery,  stop  for  cleaning 11                                                      11 

Set  screws,  protect  or  remove...  329       329     132     132       461       461 

Sewers,   provide   connections    for.  11            1           166           8           8 

Stairways,    provide    additional ...  221133 

Stairways,  equip  with  hand  rails.  5         1         22         22       35       35         62         58 

Unsanitary    appliances,    abolish .  .  3           3         114           4 

Water  closets,  provide  additional  1         1         27         26       26       26         54         63 
Water    closets,    provide    separate 

for    females 120       49         95         93       40       40       255       182 

Water  closets,  clean,  repair,  ven- 
tilate, screen 45       23         32         32       28       28       105         83 


30 

30 

30 

30 

39 

39 

39 

39 

1255 

837 

837 

2604 

2284 

108         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Place  red  light  in  hall  leading  to 

fire    escape     

Discharge  children   under    14.... 

Post   list   of  children   under   16..   503     192     1264 

The  table  shows  how  the  work  of  inspection  has  increased 
in  scope  and  efficiency  year  by  year.  The  effect  of  the  act  of 
1904,  enlarging  the  support  of  the  Bureau,  is  shown  both  in 
the  greater  number  of  recommendations  made  and  in  the  far 
higher  percentage  of  compliance  secured  since  that  date. 
Prosecution  is  very  rarely  resorted  to.  Employers  generally 
manifest  a  willingness  to  comply  with  the  law  upon  the  first 
notification,  and  even  where  they  do  not  a  second  visit  by  the 
inspector  seldom  fails  to  bring  about  the  desired  result.  In- 
formations are  filed  only  in  the  most  obstinate  cases,  and  even 
then  the  proceedings  are  dropped  or  the  fines  remitted  upon 
compliance  with  the  law.'**^^ 

Notwithstanding  the  excellent  work  already  done  by  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  in  enforcing  the  factory  laws  there 
are  still  many  violations,  particularly  in  the  smaller  estab- 
lishments. Complete  enforcement  of  these  laws  can  only  be 
brought  about  by  frequent  and  thorough  inspection  of  all  the 
establishments  to  which  they  apply.  And  this  frequent  and 
comprehensive  inspection  is  precisely  what  the  Bureau  with 
the  limited  force  at  its  disposal  can  not  give. 

CONCLUSION 

Factory  legislation  in  Iowa  is  very  recent,  most  of  the  exist- 
ing laws  having  been  enacted  within  six  years  (1902  to  1908). 
The  progress  made  during  that  period  is  very  gratifj'ing. 
Employers  are  now  required  to  equip  their  buildings,  if  over 
two  stories  in  height,  with  fire  escapes,  to  safeguard  all  dan- 
gerous machinery,  to  provide  loose  pulleys  or  mechanical  belt- 
shifters,  to  equip  grinding  and  polishing  machines  with  dust 
collectors,  to  provide  suitable  water  closets  separate  for  the 
two  sexes,  to  furnish  seats  for  female  employees.  All  manu- 
factories, stores,  and  public  or  private  works  where  five  or 
more  persons  are  employed  are  subject  to  State  inspection, 
and  the  inspector  has  ample  authority  to  enforce  the  laws. 


FACTORY  LAWS  109 

With  all  this  progress  Iowa's  factory  legislation  is  still 
very  inadequate  as  compared  with  that  of  the  more  advanced 
States.  There  is  no  law  requiring  that  steam  boilers  shall  be 
inspected,  or  that  competent  engineers  and  firemen  shall  be 
employed,  or  that  doors  shall  open  outward,  or  that  elevators 
shall  be  equipped  with  automatic  gates,  and  safety  catches, 
or  that  dust  collectors  shall  be  provided  in  factories.  There 
is  no  provision  for  the  inspection  or  proper  sanitation  of  bake 
shops;  no  requirement  that  accidents  shall  be  promptly  re- 
ported; no  limitations  upon  the  hours  of  labor  for  women; 
no  regulations  of  the  heating,  lighting,  and  ventilation  of  fac- 
tories ;  and  no  prohibition  of  overcrowding.  These  and  other 
defects  in  the  laws  must  be  remedied  and  ampler  provisions 
for  inspection  must  be  made  before  the  health,  safety,  and  com- 
fort of  indoor  employees  can  be  effectually  secured  in  the 
State  of  Iowa. 


VII 

CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION^^s 

ITS   NEED  AND   JUSTIFICATION 

The  right  and  duty  of  society  to  insist  upon  the  proper 
rearing  of  all  children  is  now  generally  recognized.  Apart 
from  humanitarian  sentiment  the  state  has  a  paramount  in- 
terest in  the  development  of  its  future  citizenship,  and  this  is 
held  to  justify  the  maintenance  of  costly  institutions  to  sup- 
plement the  voluntary  efforts  of  parents.  But  unfortunately 
not  all  parents  are  awake  to  their  parental  duties  or  able  to 
discharge  their  parental  obligations.  The  small  addition  to 
the  family  income  which  can  be  made  by  a  young  child  is  too 
often  allowed  to  outweigh  that  child's  opportunity  to  attain 
a  normal  development.  Wherever  the  law  does  not  interfere, 
children  of  tender  age  are  found  working  for  wages. 

The  wrong  done  to  the  child  is  twofold:  it  is  prevented 
from  attending  school;  and  it  is  directly  injured  by  work 
unsuited  to  its  age.  Premature  employment — particularly  in 
factories,  mines,  and  stores — stunts  the  bodily  growth,  dwarfs 
the  mind  by  undue  confinement  of  interests,  and  depraves 
the  morals  by  improper  associations.  The  victim  ages  before 
his  time,  and  very  likely  breaks  down  and  becomes  a  public 
charge  just  when  his  earning  power  should  be  at  its  maximum. 

Economically,  child  labor  is  an  unmixed  evil.  It  hinders 
the  progress  of  improvement  as  cheap  labor  always  does.  It 
is  expensive  to  the  employer  because  of  want  of  judgment 
and  the  inattention  and  wastefulness  of  young  children.  It 
depresses  the  wages  of  adults,  reducing  instead  of  increasing 
the  family  income  in  the  end.  It  helps  to  lower  the  standard 
of  living  for  the  next  generation.  Accordingly,  all  enlightened 
governments  have  thought  it  necessary  to  enact  legislation 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  111 

enforcing  a  minimum  school  attendance  and  restricting  the 
employment  of  children  in  occupations  deemed  especially  in- 
jurious. 

TARDINESS   OP   CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION   IN   IOWA 

Iowa  has  been  slower  to  move  in  the  matter  of  such  legis- 
lation than  many  of  the  other  States,  for  the  need  of  it  has 
been  felt  less  keenly.  Iowa  is  still  essentially  an  agricultural 
State,  40.7  per  cent  of  the  persons  engaged  in  gainful  occu- 
pations within  her  borders  being  employed  upon  the  farm.*^''' 
The  cities  of  the  State  are  small,  only  one-fifth  of  her  en- 
tire population  living  in  towns  of  eight  thousand  inhabitants 
or  above.*^^  Few  recent  immigrants  of  foreign  birth  come 
to  Iowa,  and  these  chiefly  from  northern  and  western 
Europe.*^^  The  people  are  noted  for  their  intelligence  and 
well-being,  and  have  been  proud  of  their  high  percentage  of 
literacy,  maintained  without  compulsory  education.  Hence 
little  was  done  in  the  way  of  enacting  child  labor  or  school 
attendance  laws  before  the  opening  of  the  twentieth  century. 

REGULATION  OF  CHILD  LABOR  IN  MINES 

The  little  legislation  that  had  been  enacted  had  reference 
only  to  the  employment  of  children  in  mines — of  all  occupa- 
tions admittedly  the  most  harmful  to  the  child.  There  are 
no  breakers  in  Iowa,  but  very  young  boys  were  formerly  em- 
ployed as  trappers  and  oilers,  or  were  even  taken  into  rooms 
to  assist  in  digging  and  loading. 

The  first  regulatory  act  was  passed  in  1874  and  provided 
that  "No  young  person  under  ten  years  of  age,  or  female 
of  any  age,  shall  be  permitted  to  enter  any  mine  to  work 
therein;  proof  of  age  to  be  made  by  certificate  or  other- 
wise."*^°  The  age  limit  was  raised  to  twelve  years  in  1880.^^^ 
But  the  first  report  of  the  State  Mine  Inspector,  only  three 
years  later,  declared  that  this  law  was  being  continually  vio- 
lated. The  Inspector  urged  that  parents  "should  be  required 
to  furnish  an  affidavit  in  regard  to  the  ages  of  their  boys" 
and  that  "no  person  between  the  ages  of  twelve  and  sixteen 


112         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

years  should  be  permitted  to  work  in  any  mine  unless  he  can 
read  and  write. "'^^^  The  "Act  to  Kegulate  Mines  and  Min- 
ing," passed  at  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  (1884), 
embodied  a  part  only  of  these  recommendations.  Section 
thirteen,  relating  to  child  labor,  reads: 

No  boys  under  twelve  years  of  age  shall  be  permitted  to  work 
in  any  mine;  and  parents  or  guardians  of  boys  shall  be  required  to 
furnish  an  affidavit  as  to  the  ages  of  their  boys  when  there  is  any 
doubt  in  regard  to  their  age,  and  in  all  cases  of  minors  applying  for 
work  the  agent  or  owner  of  the  mines  shall  see  that  the  provisions 
of  this  section  is  [are]  not  violated.'*^^ 

This  law  remained  on  the  statute  books  without  substan- 
tial change  down  to  19C6,  when  the  age  limit  for  employment 
in  mines  was  raised  to  fourteen  years. *^"*  The  United  Mine 
Workers  have  always  made  a  vigorous  effort  to  keep  children 
out  of  the  mines.  In  many  places  no  boy  under  sixteen  is 
employed  under  ground;  in  others,  only  a  few  trappers  and 
oilers  are  below  that  age.  Sometimes,  however,  a  young  boy 
is  allowed  to  work  beside  his  father  or  other  relative  during 
school  vacation.  In  a  few  instances  the  Mine  Inspector  has 
had  to  order  out  boys  under  the  legal  age.*^^ 

EARLY  ATTEMPTS  TO  SECURE  A  CHILD  LABOR  LAW 

The  Knights  of  Labor  and  others  interested  in  the  wel- 
fare of  working  children  were  not  satisfied  with  the  law  of 
1884.  The  question  of  child  labor  was  in  the  eighties  just 
beginning  to  attract  national  attention.  Laws  to  restrict  the 
employment  of  children  were  enacted  or  amended  within  this 
decade  by  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Maine,  Rhode  Island, 
New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Wisconsin,  and 
perhaps  a  few  other  States.  It  was  felt  that  Iowa  should  not 
be  behind  the  other  Commonwealths  in  the  protection  of 
children. 

Among  the  earliest  champions  of  child  labor  legislation 
in  this  State  was  Senator  W.  W.  Dodge  of  Burlington,  a 
member  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished  families  in  the  his- 
tory of  Iowa.     Senator  Dodge's  first  child  labor  bill,  pro- 


CHILD  LABOE  LEGISLATION  113 

liibiting  tlie  employment  of  children  under  fifteen  years  of 
age  in  mines,  factories,  and  work-shops,  was  presented  at 
the  legislative  session  of  1886.*^®  It  was  killed  in  the  Senate 
Sifting  Committee.'*^''  Two  years  later  Mr.  Dodge  secured 
the  passage  of  a  Senate  resolution  directing  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Labor  Statistics  to  investigate  '*  child  labor  in  the 
mines,  factories  and  work-shops  of  Iowa,  the  extent  to  which 
it  is  employed,  the  eifect  thereof,  if  any,  upon  the  physical 
and  mental  condition  of  the  children,  the  kind  of  labor  in 
which  they  are  employed  ....  and  ....  re- 
port such  information  with  any  recommendations  relating 
thereto  he  may  deem  proper  in  his  next  biennial  report 
without  additional  expense  to  the  State, "^^^ 

The  provision  against  incurring  expense  operated  to  de- 
feat in  large  measure  the  purpose  of  the  investigation.  Nev- 
ertheless, Commissioner  Hutchins  managed  to  gather  con- 
siderable information  by  correspondence.  Eighty-five  cities 
and  towns  reported  1,765  children  at  work.  The  employments 
of  these  children  were:  Water  carrying,  errands,  off  bear- 
ing, putting  glass  in  sashes,  cleaning  glass  points,  feeding 
machines,  turning  wood,  making  laths  and  shingles,  polishing 
furniture,  cloth  covering,  bobbin  winding,  packing  traps,  rub- 
bing and  cleaning,  cording  and  twisting,  cutting  and  sewing 
linings,  running  drills,  machine  painting,  cutting  screw 
threads,  labeling,  box  making,  and  packing  shingles.*^® 

The  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor  produced  little 
impression  upon  the  legislature.  Senator  Dodge's  bill,  with 
the  age  limit  changed  from  fifteen  to  fourteen  years,  was 
again  introduced  at  the  session  of  1890,  and  again  killed  in 
committee.*-*^  A  substitute  resolution  calling  for  a  further 
investigation  likewise  failed  to  pass.*^^  Another  bill  by  Dodge 
to  punish  the  exhibition  of  children  under  fourteen  for  hire 
was  indefinitely  postponed  by  the  same  General  Assembly 
(1890) ^^-  Mr.  Dodge  retired  from  the  Senate  in  1892,  and 
the  subject  of  child  labor  was  not  again  taken  up  by  the  legis- 
lature for  ten  years. 


114         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

GROWTH   or   CHILD   LABOR   IN   IOWA 

Iowa  has  undergone  great  industrial  and  social  changes 
in  the  more  than  thirty  years  since  the  enactment  of  her  first 
child  labor  law.  The  proportion  of  her  working  people  en- 
gaged in  non-agricultural  pursuits  rose  from  thirty-nine  per 
cent  in  1870  to  fifty-nine  per  cent  in  1905.*^^  The  value  of 
her  manufactures  increased  almost  fourfold  during  the  same 
period,  and  the  number  of  employees  in  manufacturing  estab- 
lishments grew  from  25,032  to  49,482.^24  j^  igjQ  there  was 
no  city  of  twenty-five  thousand  inhabitants  in  the  State;  in 
1905  there  were  seven  such  cities,  with  an  aggregate  popula- 
tion of  nearly  two  hundred  and  eighty  thousand.*^^  Iowa  is 
ceasing  to  be  an  exclusively  rural  community  and  is  taking 
on  the  complexity  of  an  advanced  society. 

These  changes,  particularly  the  growth  of  urban  condi- 
tions, have  brought  with  them  many  new  problems,  among 
which  those  of  child  labor  and  school  attendance  early  became 
prominent.  The  census  of  1900  showed  that  29,410  persons 
under  sixteen  years  of  age  were  engaged  in  gainful  occupa- 
tions in  Iowa — being  thirty-seven  in  every  thousand  persons 
so  engaged,  and  one-tenth  of  the  whole  number  of  persons 
between  the  ages  of  ten  and  sixteen  years  in  the  State.*^^ 
But  of  these  youthful  wage-earners,  19,520  were  engaged  in 
agricultural  pursuits  and  5,771  in  domestic  and  personal 
service — neither  of  which  employments  has  ever  been  sup- 
posed to  require  special  restrictive  legislation.  This  leaves 
in  objectionable  occupations  4,119  children,  of  whom  735  were 
under  fourteen,  and  171  were  under  twelve.*^^  The  number 
working  in  factories,  stores,  offices,  and  mines  is  not  sep- 
arately reported  in  the  Census  and  cannot  be  accurately  ascer- 
tained. Employers'  returns  to  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor 
Statistics  in  1898  showed  623  children  at  work  in  manufac- 
turing and  mercantile  establishments.  By  1902  the  number 
so  reported  had  risen  to  2,630,  an  increase  of  323.16  per  cent 
in  four  years.*^^  The  Bureau's  returns  were  very  incom- 
plete, since  only  establishments  employing  five  or  more  per- 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  115 

sons  were  required  to  report,  and  since  employers  were  averse 
to  giving  information  on  this  subject.  The  Commissioner  of 
Labor  was  convinced  from  personal  observation  that  the  num- 
ber actually  employed  was  more  than  double  that  reported.*^^ 
Nevertheless,  the  figures  do  show  a  rate  of  increase  that 
threatened  to  make  child  labor  a  serious  menace  in  the  near 
future. 

In  reference  to  this  menace  Commissioner  Wennerstrum 
says  in  his  official  report  of  1901  (p.  21)  that  "Many  of  these 
children  were  employed  at  tasks  that  involved  hard  and  la- 
borious work.  They  were  employed  for  the  same  number  of 
hours  as  mature  men,  and  were  given  no  privileges  or  special 
exemptions  from  work.  I  took  special  pains  to  observe  the 
physical  condition  of  the  children  that  I  found  working  in 
the  factories,  and  they  impressed  me  by  their  wan  and  over- 
worked appearance.  In  many  cases  they  were  in  a  run-down 
condition,  and  seriously  weakened.  In  almost  every  instance 
the  employers  of  these  children,  when  I  first  approached  them 
with  my  inquiries,  indicated  very  markedly  their  own  sense 
of  wrong  done  the  children  by  such  early  employment  in  the 
fact  that  they  were  under  the  impression  that  they  were  vio- 
lating a  state  law  ....  I  found  in  a  number  of  cases 
that  the  children  had  never  attended  school,  that  some  had 
attended  but  a  short  time  and  had  but  little  knowledge  of 
books  or  ability  to  use  books." 

Two  years  later  Commissioner  Brigham  reported  that 
"Children  were  found  in  some  establishments  who  were  only 
ten  years  old  and  many  who  were  but  twelve,  the  appearance 
of  such  children  was  pathetic  in  the  extreme,  surrounded  as 
many  were  by  the  dirt  and  grime  of  their  employment,  and 
to  realize  that  such  conditions  existed  in  fair  Iowa  with  no 
legal  authority  to  prevent  it  made  the  work  of  factory  in- 
spection difficult  and  appealing."  "^^ 

The  conditions  as  regards  child  labor  were  by  no  means 
as  bad  in  Iowa  as  in  the  Cotton  Belt  or  in  such  northern 
States  as  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode  Island.    Yet  in  the  ratio 


116         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

of  adults  to  children  in  manufacturing  and  mechanical  pur- 
suits, Iowa  in  1900  ranked  thirty-fourth  among  the  Common- 
wealths of  the  Union. ^^''^  The  facts  were  surely  sufficient  to 
indicate  the  desirableness  of  restrictive  legislation, 

FACTORY    ACT    OF    1902 

The  first  forward  step  was  in  the  direction  of  protecting 
the  lives  and  limbs  of  working  children.  Statistics  of  indus- 
trial accidents  always  show  a  disproportionate  number  of 
injuries  to  workers  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  and  this  for 
the  very  reason  that  the  prudence  and  forethought  by  which 
such  injuries  may  be  largely  avoided  are  qualities  very  rare 
in  a  young  child. '^^^  That  Iowa  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  is 
indicated  by  the  all  too  frequent  occurrence  in  the  factory  in- 
spection reports  of  items  like  the  following:  ''One  boy  fifteen 
years  old  had  hair  caught  in  belt  and  killed  in  button  fac- 
tory";*^^  ''Bell  boy  crushed  to  death  below  moving  elevator 
weight s";*^^  "young  girl  aged  fourteen  had  hair  caught  in 
cream  separator  which  was  running  rapidly  and  had  scalp 
torn  off."^^^  Details  such  as  these  illustrate  the  inhumanity 
of  permitting  young  children  to  operate  high-speed  machinery. 

The  factory  act  of  1902  was  intended  to  put  a  stop  to 

this  practice.     It  provides  that  "No  person  under   sixteen 

years  of  age,  and  no  female  under  eighteen  years  of  age  shall 

be  permitted  or  directed  to  clean  machinery  while  in  motion. 

Children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  not  be  permitted 

to  operate  or  assist  in  operating  dangerous  machinery,  of  any 
kind. '"^36 

This  act  did  not  fully  accomplish  the  object  for  which  it 
was  designed.  Elevator  boys  apparently  were  not  included 
in  its  provisions  ;^^'^  while,  in  spite  of  the  prohibition,  chil- 
dren were  still  allowed  to  operate  actually  dangerous  ma- 
chinery in  button  factories,  cereal  mills,  laundries,  glove  fac- 
tories, and  elsewhere.  So  long  as  children  are  permitted  to 
work  at  all  in  such  places  it  will  be  very  difficult  to  prevent 
their  employment  about   dangerous  machinery.     Some  em- 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  117 

ployers  entered  into  criminal  conspiracy  to  violate  the  law, 
as  is  shown  by  the  following  waiver  of  liability: 

COPT   OF  RELEASE  FORM   FOR   CHILD   EMPLOYMENT*^^ 

I state  that  I  am years 

old ;  that  I  am  fully  competent  to  do  the  work  I  now  apply  for  with 
said  company;  that  I  have  before  worked  for  myself  at  different 
occupations  when  dangerous  machinery  was  used,  that  I  am  able  to 
comprehend  the  dangers  of  such  work,  as  now  applied  for,  and  if 
given  employment  by  the  above  named  company  I  will  assume  all 
dangers  and  risks  of  personal  injury  connected  with  such  employ- 
ment, and  do  hereby  waive  the  dangers  incident  to  the  manner  in 
which  such  machinery  is  constructed,  guarded  or  operated. 

Applicant. 

Dated   ,  19.... 

Advocates  of  the  freedom  of  contract  may  find  in  the  above 
instrument  an  excellent  illustration  of  the  working  of  their 
favorite  theory. 

COMPULSORY  EDUCATION 

As  far  back  as  1841  the  first  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction  recommended  a  compulsory  education  law.*^®  This 
recommendation  was  many  times  renewed  by  his  successors 
in  office,  as  well  as  by  teachers'  associations  and  prominent 
educators.^*^  It  was  not,  however,  until  1902  that  a  beginning 
of  such  legislation  was  made.  The  act  of  that  year  required 
any  person  having  control  of  any  child  of  the  age  of  seven 
to  fourteen  years,  inclusive,  in  proper  physical  and  mental 
condition  to  attend  school,  to  cause  such  child  to  attend  some 
public,  private,  or  parochial  school  for  at  least  twelve  con- 
secutive school  weeks  in  each  year.  A  fine  of  not  less  than 
three  nor  more  than  twenty  dollars  was  prescribed  for  each 
violation.  The  board  of  directors  of  each  school  corpora- 
tion was  authorized,  but  not  required,  to  establish  truant 
schools  and  to  appoint  truant  officers.**^ 

The  law  of  1902  was  not  found  to  work  satisfactorily. 
The  act  did  not  specify  when  the  required  attendance  should 


118 


HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


commence,  and  this  made  it  easy  of  evasion.  Comparatively 
few  corporations  appointed  truant  officers,  and  in  the  absence 
of  such  officers  the  law  was  very  often  ignored. 

Some  of  these  defects  were  remedied  in  1904.  The  amend- 
ment of  that  year  changed  the  attendance  requirement  to 
sixteen  consecutive  weeks  in  each  school  year,  commencing 
with  the  first  week  of  school  after  the  first  day  of  Septem- 
ber, unless  the  directors  should  determine  upon  a  different 
date  not  later  than  the  first  Monday  in  December.  At  the 
same  time  the  appointment  of  truant  officers  was  made  manda- 
tory in  school  corporations  having  a  population  of  twenty 
thousand  or  more.**^ 

To  ascertain  the  effectiveness  of  this  law,  a  series  of  ques- 
tions was  submitted  by  the  Department  of  Public  Instruc- 
tion, to  the  several  city  and  county  superintendents  of  the 
State.  From  replies  received  it  was  estimated  that  3,008 
children  had  been  brought  into  school  through  the  compul- 
sory law  during  the  period  1902-1906,  and  that  1,934  were 
brought  in  within  the  last  school  year  covered  by  that  re- 
port.*"*^ The  number  of  children  of  the  ages  of  seven  to 
fourteen,  reported  by  school  secretaries  as  not  attending 
school,  for  the  period  required  by  law,  during  these  same 
years  is  shown  in  the  following  table:*** 


§^ 

-%<^ 

1  O-i 

^g 

g  8| 

^   g 

m 

§- 

-IS 

§g- 

•^ 

pa  Q  M 

z  CO  CO 
S  2  S  f^ 

E  5  w 
^  2  S 

W  Z  g  1 

o 

iJ  J  OS 

S  «  Q  W 

O  H  3  1 

2 

O  ^  < 

S  ^  ^;  << 

H  w  ■ 

» 

a  w  « 

"WWW 

«  t;  IS  1 

o 

S  O  tH 

W  >i  t(  J 

fH  <  u  \ 

on 

p 

u 

PU 

1902-1903 

387,989 

8,876 

2:3 

1903-1904 

387,378 

6,060 

1:6 

1904-1905 

385,147 

7,142 

1:8 

1905-1906 

377,842 

5,445 

1:4 

1906-1907 

366,972 

6,820 

1:8 

The  reports  of  non-attendance  are  based  upon  the  unveri- 
fied statements   of  parents   at   the  annual   school  census.**^ 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  119 

They  are,  accordingly,  quite  inaccurate,  but  much  more  likely 
to  err  on  the  side  of  deficiency  than  excess.  For  this  reason 
no  special  significance  can  be  attached  to  the  fluctuations  from 
one  year  to  another;  the  number  of  omissions  is  always  more 
than  sufficient  to  permit  considerable  variations  in  the  re- 
turns without  any  change  in  actual  non-attendance.  Taking 
the  figures  at  their  face  value,  they  certainly  do  not  indicate 
any  marked  improvement  in  the  enforcement  of  the  compul- 
sory attendance  law  since  it  was  first  enacted  in  1902.  There 
are  no  data  for  comparison  with  conditions  before  that  year. 
It  seems  clear  that  the  compulsory  attendance  law  is  now  fairly 
well  enforced  in  most  of  the  larger  cities  of  the  State — 
those  having  twenty  thousand  or  more  inhabitants.^^^  In 
these  cities  the  appointment  of  truant  oflficers  is  obligatory. 
Moreover,  the  school  systems  are  generally  well  organized 
and  the  school  oflScers  are  apt  to  be  men  of  intelligence  and 
public  spirit.  The  annual  school  census  is  taken  with  greater 
care  than  is  usual  in  the  smaller  places,  and  the  truant  of- 
ficer is  expected  to  see  to  it  that  every  child  on  the  secre- 
taries' books,  within  the  age  limits  of  the  compulsory  law, 
attends  some  regular  school.  The  humane  societies,  the  juve- 
nile courts,  and  other  social  agencies  (which  are  either  wholly 
wanting  or  less  efficient  in  the  smaller  centers  of  population) 
do  much  toward  the  enforcement  of  the  school  law  in  the  larger 
cities. 

In  several  of  the  most  important  cities  of  the  State,  the 
school  authorities  interpret  the  requirement  of  consecutive 
attendance  strictly.  Children  who  miss  a  single  day  without 
satisfactory  excuse  are  reported  to  the  truant  officer,  and 
pressure  is  exerted  to  keep  children  in  school  after  the  ex- 
piration of  the  required  sixteen  weeks.  These  efforts  are 
generally  successful.  In  most  cases  a  visit  of  the  truant  of- 
ficer to  the  parents  is  sufficient  to  secure  compliance  with 
the  law.  "The  wise  officer,  using  tact  and  common  sense 
can  usually  deal  with  the  parent  without  resorting  to  the 
courts.  "^^"^     Thus,  while  more  than  three  thousand  children 


120         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

were  brought  into  school  by  the  compulsory  law  during  the 
first  four  years  of  its  operation,  there  were,  during  the  same 
period,  but  151  prosecutions  and  122  convictions  in  the  en- 
tire State  for  violation  of  its  provisions.^^^  All  but  two  of 
these  cases  arose  in  graded  schools.**^ 

So  far  as  is  known  no  school  board  in  Iowa  has  availed 
itself  of  the  permission  to  establish  truant  schools.  But  a 
much  more  valuable  institution  is  provided  for  by  an  act  of 
the  Thirty-second  General  Assembly  (1907)  which  requires 
every  county  having  a  population  of  more  than  fifty  thousand 
to  maintain  a  detention  home  for  dependent,  neglected,  and 
delinquent  children.^^^  In  these  homes  habitual  truants  will 
not  merely  be  separated  from  their  school  fellows,  upon  whom 
they  may  exert  an  undesirable  influence,  but  they  will  be  taken 
away  from  the  unfortunate  home  environment  which  is  so 
largely  responsible  for  truancy  as  it  is  for  juvenile  crime. 
The  act  immediately  affects  the  four  largest  cities  in  the 
State  and  is  expected  to  be  productive  of  much  benefit. 

In  many  towns  of  five  thousand  people  and  upwards  truant 
officers  have  never  been  appointed.  In  such  towns  non-at- 
tendance is  of  frequent  occurrence,  and  is  without  adequate 
remedy.  There  being  no  one  whose  business  it  is  to  enforce 
the  law,  children  who  ought  to  be  in  school  are  allowed  to 
loaf  upon  the  streets,  or  to  congregate  in  alleys  and  on  vacant 
lots.  In  rural  communities  there  is  less  idleness,  but  the  con- 
ditions as  regards  school  attendance  are  even  worse.  Very 
few  school  townships,  and  hardly  any  independent  districts, 
have  truant  officers.^^^  It  is,  to  be  sure,  the  duty  of  the 
school  director  or  the  president  of  the  board  to  prosecute 
violators  of  the  law,  and  this  duty  becomes  mandatory  upon 
receipt  of  written  notice  from  a  resident  of  the  district,*^^ 
or  from  the  county  superintendent.*^^  But  few  persons  care 
to  incur  the  hostility  of  their  neighbors  by  giving  notice  of 
violations  and  most  county  superintendents  have  been  too 
timid  to  use  their  authority.  Thousands  of  parents  in  all 
parts  of  the  State  are  unwilling  to  send  their  children  to 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  121 

school,  and  in  many  communities  there  is  no  public  sentiment 
in  favor  of  compelling  them  to  do  so. 

For  the  reasons  just  stated  the  compulsory  attendance  law 
has  remained  a  dead  letter  in  large  sections  of  the  State.*^* 
To  make  it  generally  effective  the  appointment  of  truant  of- 
ficers ought  to  be  made  obligatory  in  every  school  township 
and  in  every  city  independent  district.  Prosecutions  ought 
to  be  far  more  numerous  than  they  are,  particularly  in  the 
country.  No  argument  appeals  to  negligent  and  avaricious 
parents  like  an  occasional  fine  and  imprisonment.  The  pub- 
lic schools  can  never  secure  their  object  of  universal  educa- 
tion until  the  compulsory  attendance  law  is  generally  enforced. 

THE    CHILD  LABOB   AGITATIOIT    1900-1906 

The  two  laws  secured  in  1902  (namely,  the  factory  act 
and  the  compulsory  education  act)  were  each  a  step  in  miti- 
gation of  the  evils  of  unregulated  child  labor.  But  they  did 
not  eradicate  those  evils.  The  school  law  applied  only  to 
twelve  (now  sixteen)  weeks  in  the  year,  while  the  factory 
law  did  not  prevent  the  employment  of  young  children  in  of- 
fices and  stores,  or  in  those  departments  of  factory  work 
where  dangerous  machinery  is  not  used.  Said  Commissioner 
of  Labor  Brigham  in  1903 :  "If  not  forced  by  a  truant  officer 
to  go  to  school  twelve  weeks,  the  child  remains  continuously 
employed,  as  no  penalty  attaches  to  the  employer. 
At  the  present  rate  of  increase  Iowa  will  have  in  1910  at 
least  four  thousand  children  in  factories;  and  those  enu- 
merated at  the  preceding  census  will  probably  by  that  time 
have  become  paupers  and  invalids,  surely  illiterates,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  per  cent  that  will  be  crippled  and  maimed.  "^^^ 

The  need  of  a  child  labor  law  was  brought  to  public  no- 
tice by  Commissioner  of  Labor  C.  F.  Wennerstrum  in  1901 
as  a  result  of  his  work  in  factory  inspection.  The  Commis- 
sioner described  the  deplorable  conditions  he  had  found,  cited 
the  legislation  of  other  States,  and  recommended  the  passage 
of  a  law  prohibiting  the  employment  of  children  under  four- 
teen years  of  age  in  factories  and  mines.*^^ 


122         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

At  the  next  session  of  the  legislature  (1902)  Senator  G.  W. 
Lister  introduced  a  bill  which  forbade  the  employment  of 
children  under  fourteen  j^ears  old  in  mines,  factories,  work- 
shops, or  places  of  public  entertainment,  except  that  a  child 
over  twelve  years  of  age  might  work  anywhere  but  in  coal 
mines  if  the  president  of  a  school  board  should  certify  that 
the  labor  of  such  child  was  necessary  for  the  support  of  an 
aged  or  infirm  parent,  or  of  a  brother  or  sister.*^'^  This  bill 
was  supported  by  the  State  Federation  of  Labor  f^^  it  passed 
the  Senate  after  amendment  in  committee  and  upon  the  floor, 
but  never  reached  a  vote  in  the  House.*^^ 

Thus  the  attempt  to  secure  a  child  labor  law  had  again 
failed.  But  the  question  of  abolishing  child  labor  in  Iowa 
had  at  last  been  brought  before  the  public.  From  this  mo- 
ment agitation  of  the  subject  was  never  allowed  to  cease  until 
a  fairly  good  law  had  been  placed  upon  the  statute  books. 
The  Iowa  Branch  of  the  American  Federation  of  Labor  led 
the  way  in  this  propaganda.'*^^  The  Federation  of  Women's 
Clubs  took  up  the  movement  in  1903,  appointing  a  Child  Labor 
Committee  composed  of  Mrs.  W.  H.  Baily  of  Des  Moines, 
Mrs.  Horace  E.  Deemer,  of  Red  Oak,  and  Mrs.  Maria  Purdy 
Peck,  of  Davenport.'^^^  Other  organizations,  such  as  the 
Women's  Christian  Temperance  Union,  the  King's  Daughters, 
and  the  State  Teachers'  Association  lent  their  moral  support 
to  the  cause.  Mr.  E.  D.  Brigham,  who  in  1902  had  succeeded 
Mr.  W^ennerstrum  as  Commissioner  of  Labor,  presented  a 
severe  arraignment  of  existing  conditions  in  his  first  biennial 
report.*^^ 

Thus  when  the  Thirtieth  General  Assembly  convened  in 
January,  1904.  there  was  already  considerable  public  opin- 
ion favorable  to  child  labor  legislation.  Commissioner  Brig- 
ham  had  asked  for  **a  law  to  restrict  the  employment  of  chil- 
dren for  gain  during  the  terms  that  schools  are  open  and 
until  an  eighth  grade  certificate  is  furnished  by  city  or  county 
superintendent  of  schools. "*^^  The  Governor's  message  re- 
ferred to  the  need  of  legislative  action,  without  proposing  any 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  123 

specific  measure.*^*  But  legislative  interest  chiefly  centered 
about  a  bill  drafted  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Baily,  of  Des  Moines,  un- 
der the  auspices  of  the  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs. 

Mr.  Baily,  after  conferring  with  Miss  Florence  Kelly  of 
the  National  Consumers'  League  and  comparing  the  laws  of 
Massachusetts,  New  York,  Ohio  and  Illinois,  had  drawn  a  bill 
which  was  approved  by  Justice  Horace  E.  Deemer  of  the 
Supreme  Court  and  by  the  Commissioner  of  Labor.^^^  Its 
full  text  is  as  follows  :*^^ 

A  Bn.L 

FOB  AN  ACT  TO  REGULATE  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  CHU^D  LABOR  AND  TO 
PROVIDE  FOR  THE  ENFORCEMENT  THEREOF.  (ADDITIONAL  TO  CHAP- 
TER 8,  TITLE  XXI  OF  THE  CODE.) 

Be  it  Enacted  hy  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Iowa: 

Section  1,  No  child  under  fourteen  years  of  age,  and  no  child 
under  sixteen  years  of  age  who  is  less  than  sixty  inches  in  height 
and  eighty  pounds  in  weight,  shall  be  employed  in  any  mine,  quarry, 
manufacturing  establishment,  factory,  mill,  workshop  or  mercantile 
establishment. 

No  such  child  shall  be  employed  in  work  performed  for  wages 
or  other  compensation  to  whomsoever  payable,  during  the  hours  when 
the  public  schools  of  the  school  corporation  in  which  he  resides  are  in 
session. 

No  such  child  shall  be  employed  in  any  work,  performed  with  or 
without  wages  or  other  compensation,  during  the  hours  when  the 
public  schools  of  the  school  corporation  in  which  he  resides  are  in 
session  unless  he  has  within  the  last  twelve  months  attended  a  pub- 
lic or  parochial  school  for  the  period  provided  by  law. 

Sec.  2.  No  child  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  employed  in 
any  work  which  by  reason  of  the  nature  of  the  work  or  the  place  of 
performance  is  dangerous  to  life  or  limb  or  in  which  its  health  may 
be  injured  or  its  morals  may  be  depraved,  or  in  any  place  where 
intoxicating  liquors  are  sold  or  given  away. 

No  female  child  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  employed  in 
any  capacity  where  such  employment  compels  her  to  remain  standing 
constantly. 

No  child  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  employed  at  any  work 
in  any  mine,   quarry,   manufacturing  establishment,    factory,   mill, 


124         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

workshop  or  mercantile  establishment,  before  the  hour  of  six  o'clock 
in  the  morning  or  after  the  hour  of  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening,  nor 
shall  such  child  be  employed  at  any  work  more  than  ten  hours  in  any 
one  day  or  more  than  fifty-five  hours  in  any  one  week. 

Evidence  that  any  building  or  place  is  erected  or  maintained  or 
business  is  conducted  contrary  to  or  in  violation  of  any  law  of  the 
state  or  of  any  ordinance  of  any  city  or  town  or  regulation  of  a 
board  of  health  or  of  any  notice  given  by  the  Commissioner  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  pursuant  to  section  twenty-four  hundred 
and  seventy-two  of  the  code  shall  be  prima  facie  evidence  that  such 
building  or  place  or  business  is  dangerous  within  the  meaning  of  this 
act.  The  taking  by  an  employer  of  any  waiver  or  release  from 
liability  for  damages  for  future  personal  injuries  shall  be  prima  facie 
evidence  that  the  business  or  employment  is  dangerous  within  the 
meaning  of  this  act. 

The  presence  of  a  child  under  sixteen  years  of  age  in  any  mine, 
manufacturing  establishment,  factory,  miU  or  workshop  shall  be  pnma 
facie  evidence  of  his  employment  therein. 

Sec.  3.  No  child  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  employed 
in  any  mine,  quarry,  manufacturing  establishment,  factory,  mill, 
workshop  or  mercantile  establishment  unless  the  person,  firm,  or  cor- 
poration employing  him  procures  and  keeps  on  file,  and  accessible  to 
any  officer  or  person  authorized  to  inspect  the  same  or  such  place 
of  business,  an  age  and  schooling  certificate  as  hereinafter  pre- 
scribed, and  keeps  two  complete  lists  of  all  such  children  employed 
therein,  one  on  file,  and  one  conspicuously  posted  near  the  main 
entrance  of  the  building  in  which  such  children  are  employed  and 
sends  a  copy  of  said  list  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of 
Labor  Statistics  and  to  the  Superintendent  of  Schools  of  the  school 
corporation  in  which  such  business  is  carried  on,  or  where  there 
is  no  superintendent,  to  the  secretary  of  the  school  corporation,  the 
names  of  all  minors  employed  therein  who  cannot  read  at  sight  and 
write  legibly  simple  sentences  in  the  English  language.  A  failure 
to  produce  to  any  officer  or  person  authorized  to  inspect  the  same,  any 
age  and  schooling  certificate,  or  list  required  to  be  kept,  or  to  keep 
or  post  any  certificate  or  list  required  to  be  kept  or  posted,  shall  be 
prima  facie  evidence  of  the  illegal  employment  of  any  person  whose 
age  and  schooling  certificate  is  not  produced  or  whose  name  is  not  so 
listed. 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  125 

Sec.  4.  An  age  and  schooling  certificate  shall  be  approved  only 
by  the  superintendent  of  schools  of  the  school  corporation  in  which 
the  child  resides  or  by  a  person  authorized  by  him  in  writing,  or 
where  there  is  no  superintendent  of  schools,  by  the  secretary  of  the 
school  corporation  or  other  person  authorized  by  the  school  board. 
No  such  officer  or  person  shall  have  authority  to  approve  such  cer- 
tificate for  any  child  therein  or  about  to  enter  his  own  employment 
or  the  employment  of  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  of  which  he 
is  a  member,  officer,  or  employe,  or  in  whose  business  he  is  interested. 
The  officer  or  person  approving  such  certificate  shall  have  authority 
to  administer  the  oath  provided  for  therein  or  in  any  investigation 
or  examination  necessary  to  the  approval  thereof. 

Whenever  complaint  in  writing  and  under  oath  is  made  to  the 
judge  of  a  court  of  record,  by  any  officer  or  person  authorized  to  in- 
spect such  certificate  or  the  place  or  business  where  the  holder  thereof 
is  employed,  that  any  such  certificate  has  been  improperly  approved, 
or  by  any  such  child  or  his  parent,  guardian,  or  custodian  that  the 
approval  of  such  certificate  has  been  improperly  refused,  said  judge 
may  investigate  such  complaint  in  a  summary  manner  and  shall 
approve  or  refuse  to  approve  or  revoke  said  certificate  according  to 
the  provisions  of  this  act  and  shall  file  said  complaint  and  other  pa- 
pers with  a  statement  of  his  action  thereon  in  the  proper  office. 

The  board  of  directors  of  each  school  corporation  shall  establish 
and  maintain  proper  records  where  all  such  certificates  and  all  docu- 
ments connected  therewith  shall  be  filed  and  preserved  and  shall  pro- 
vide the  necessary  clerical  service  for  carrying  out  the  provisions  of 
this  act. 

No  fee  shall  be  charged  for  approving  any  such  certificate  or 
for  administering  any  oath  or  rendering  any  service  therein. 

Sec.  5.  An  age  and  schooling  certificate  shall  not  be  approved 
unless  satisfactory  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  last  school  census, 
the  certificate  of  birth  or  baptism  of  such  child,  the  register  of  the 
birth  of  such  child  with  the  clerk  of  the  district  court  or  other  public 
office  or  officer,  or  by  the  records  of  public  or  parochial  schools,  that 
the  child  is  of  the  age  stated  in  the  certificate.  In  cases  where  it  is 
made  to  appear  by  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  above  proof  is 
not  obtainable  the  age  of  the  child  may  be  proved  by  affidavit  of  the 
parent  or  guardian  of  such  child  or  other  person  having  personal 
knowledge  of  the  fact. 


126         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Sec.  6.  The  age  and  schooling  certificate  of  a  child  under  six- 
teen years  of  age  shall  not  be  approved  and  signed  until  he  presents 
to  the  person  or  officer  authorized  to  approve  and  sign  the  same,  a 
school  attendance  certificate  as  hereinafter  prescribed,  duly  filled  out 
and  signed.  A  duplicate  of  such  age  and  schooling  certificate  shall 
be  filled  out  and  kept  on  file  by  the  school  authorities  and  a  like 
duplicate  shall  be  filed  with  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  La- 
bor Statistics.  Any  explanatory  matter  may  be  printed  with  such 
certificate  in  the  discretion  of  the  school  board  or  the  superintendent 
of  schools.  The  school  attendance  and  the  age  and  schooling  cer- 
tificate shall  be  separately  printed  and  shall  be  filled  out,  signed,  held 
and  surrendered  as  indicated  in  the  following  forms: 

SCHOOL  ATTENDANCE  CERTIFICATE 

(For  minor  who  can  read  and  write) 

(name  of  school)  ,  (city  or 

town) ,  Iowa,  date  ,  19 ... . 

This  certifies  that (name  of  minor) 

of  the th  grade,  can  read  at  sight  and  write  legible  simple 

sentences  in  the  English  language. 

This  also  certifies  that  according  to  the  records  of  this  school  and 

in  my  belief,  the  said (name  of  minor) 

was  born  at (name  of  city  or  town)  in 

county,  state  of ,  on  the 

(date)  and  is  now years 

and months  old. 

(name  of  parent  or  guardian) , 

(residence) . 

( Signature)   Teacher. 

CORRECT.  (Signature)    Principal. 

SCHOOL  ATTENDANCE  CERTIFICATE 

(For  minor  who  can  not  read  or  write) 
(name  of  school)  ,  (city  or 

town),  Iowa,  (date)  ,19 

This  certifies  that (name  of  minor) 

is  registered  in  and  regularly  attends  the (name 

of  school ) . 

This  also  certifies  that  according  to  the  records  of  this  school  and 

in  my  belief,  the  said (name  of  minor) 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  127 

was  born  at (name  of  city  or  town)  in 

county,  state  of ,  on  the 

(date )  and  is  now years 

months  old. 

(name  of  parent  or  guardian) , 

(residence). 

(Signature)    Teacher. 

CORRECT.  (Signature)    Principal. 

AGE  AND  SCHOOLING   CERTIFICATE 

(city  or  town),  Iowa,  (date)  ,  19. . . 

This  certifies  that  I  am  the (father,  mother, 

guardian  or  custodian)  of (name  of 

minor)  and  that (he  or  she)  was  bom  at 

(name  of  city  or  town),  in county,  state  of , 

on  the (date  of  birth)  and  is  now 

years months  old. 

(Signature  of  father,  mother,  guardian  or  custodian) 

(name  of  city  or  town) 

Iowa,  (date)    ,  19 

There  personally  appeared  before  me  the  above  named 

(name  of  person  signing)  and  being  sworn  tes- 
tified that  the  foregoing  certificate  by (him  or  her) 

signed  is  true  to  the  best  of (his  or  her)  knowledge 

or  belief.    I  hereby  approve  the  foregoing  certificate  of 

(name  of  minor) ,  height  feet 

inches,  weight pounds 

ounces,  complection (fair  or  dark),  hair 

(color)  having  no  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  that (he 

or  she)  is  of  the  age  therein  certified.    I  hereby  certify  that 

(he  or  she)  (can  or  cannot)  read  at  sight  and 

(can  or  cannot)  write  legibly  simple  sentences  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. 

(In  case  the  child  cannot  read  at  sight  and  write  legibly  simple 
sentences  in  the  English  language,  insert  here  the  following: 

I  further  certify  that (he  or  she)  is  regularly  attend- 
ing the (name  of  school).     This  certificate  shall 

continue  in  force  only  so  long  as  the  regular  attendance  of  said  child 
at  said  school  is  certified  weekly  by  a  teacher  thereof. ) 


128         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

This  certificate  belongs  to  (name  of 

minor)  and  is  to  be  surrendered  to (him  or  her)  whenever 

(he  or  she)  leaves  the  service  of  the  person,  firm  or  cor- 
poration holding  the  same  as  employer,  but  if  not  claimed  by  said 
child  within  thirty  days  from  such  time  it  shall  be  returned  to  the 
superintendent  of  schools  or  the  secretary  of  the  school  corporation. 


(Signature  and  official  title  of  person  authorized  to  approve 
and  sign.) 

Sec.  7.  No  person  shall  employ  any  minor  over  fourteen  years 
of  age,  and  no  parent,  guardian  or  custodian  shall  permit  to  be  em- 
ployed any  such  minor  under  control  who  cannot  read  at  sight  and 
write  legibly  simple  sentences  in  the  English  language  while  a  public 
or  parochial  evening  school  or  other  free  evening  school  is  maintained 
in  the  school  corporation  in  which  such  minor  resides  or  is  employed, 
or  in  an  adjoining  school  corporation  reasonably  accessible  to  his 
place  of  residence,  unless  such  minor  is  a  regular  attendant  at  such 
evening  school  or  at  a  day  school.  Upon  presentation  by  such  minor 
of  a  certificate  signed  by  a  regular  practicing  physician,  and  satis- 
factory to  the  officer  or  person  authorized  to  approve  an  age  and 
schooling  certificate,  showing  that  the  physical  condition  of  such  mi- 
nor would  render  such  attendance  in  addition  to  his  daily  labor 
prejudicial  to  his  health,  said  officer  or  person  authorized  to  approve 
an  age  or  schooling  certificate  shall  issue  a  permit  authorizing  the 
employment  of  such  minor  for  such  period  as  such  officer  or  person 
shall  determine.  Said  person  or  officer  authorized  to  approve  age  and 
schooling  certificates,  or  teachers  acting  under  his  authority,  may  ex- 
cuse any  absence  from  such  evening  school  arising  from  justifiable 
cause. 

Sec.  8.  Every  employer  of  minors  in  any  mine,  quarry,  manufac- 
turing establishment,  factory,  mill,  workshop,  or  mercantile  estab- 
lishment shall  post  in  a  conspicuous  place  in  every  room  where  such 
minors  are  employed,  a  printed  notice  stating  the  number  of  hours 
required  of  them  on  each  day  of  the  week,  the  hours  of  commencing 
and  stopping  work,  and  the  hours  when  the  time  or  times  allowed 
for  dinner  or  other  meals  begin  and  end.  There  shall  be  allowed 
at  least  thirty  minutes  for  meal  time  at  dinner.  The  time  allowed 
for  meals  shall  not  be  included  as  a  part  of  the  work  hours  of  the 
day.     The  printed  form  of  such  notice  shall  be  furnished  by  the 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  129 

Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.  The  employinent 
of  any  such  minor  for  a  longer  time  in  any  day  than  that  so  stated 
in  such  notice  shall  be  deemed  a  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this 
act. 

Sec.  9.  Truant  officers,  sheriffs,  constables,  mayors,  town  or  city 
marshals,  and  other  peace  officers  within  the  districts  or  territory  for 
which  they  are  elected  or  appointed,  state  mine  inspectors,  inspectors 
of  factories  and  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics 
and  his  deputies  and  assistants  may  visit  any  mine,  quarry,  manu- 
facturing establishment,  factory,  mill,  workshop,  mercantile  establish- 
ment or  other  place  where  labor  is  employed  and  ascertain  whether 
any  minors  are  employed  therein  contrary  to  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  and  whether  the  provisions  of  this  act  in  respect  to  posted  lists 
and  notices,  age  and  schooling  certificates,  reports  and  other  matters 
are  complied  with.  Such  officers  may  require  that  the  age  and  school- 
ing certificates  and  the  lists  provided  for  in  this  act  shall  be  pro- 
duced for  their  inspection.  Such  officers  shall  report  any  cases  of 
illegal  employment  to  the  Secretary  of  the  School  Corporation  in 
which  the  minor  resides  and  in  which  he  is  employed;  and  such  of- 
ficers shall  report  any  eases  of  illegal  employment  or  any  violation 
of  or  failure  to  comply  with  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  to  the 
county  attorney  and  sheriff  of  the  county,  to  the  city  solicitor  of  the 
city  and  marshal  of  the  city  or  town  and  to  the  Commissioner  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics. 

Sec.  10.  Any  parent,  guardian  or  other  person  who,  having  un- 
der his  control  any  minor,  causes  or  permits  said  minor  to  work  or 
be  employed  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall  be  guilty 
of  a  misdemeanor  and  upon  conviction  shall  be  fined  not  more  than 
twenty-five  dollars  ($25.00)  or  be  imprisoned  for  not  more  than  ten 
days. 

Any  person  failing  to  produce  to  any  officer  or  person  authorized 
to  inspect  the  same,  any  age  and  schooling  certificates  or  lists  re- 
quired by  this  act,  and  any  employer  or  other  person  retaining  any 
such  age  and  schooling  certificate  in  violation  of  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  upon  conviction  shall 
be  fined  not  more  than  twenty-five  dollars  or  be  imprisoned  not  more 
than  ten  days. 

Any  person  authorized  to  sign  any  certificate  provided  for  in  this 
act  who  certifies  to  any  materially  false  statement  shall  be  guilty  of 


130         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

a  misdemeanor  and  upon  conviction  shall  be  fined  not  more  than 
one  hundred  dollars  ($100.00)  or  be  imprisoned  not  more  than  thirty 
days.  Every  person,  firm  or  corporation,  agent  or  manager,  superin- 
tendent or  foreman  of  any  person,  firm  or  corporation,  whether  for 
himself  or  for  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  or  by  himself 
or  through  sub-agents  or  foreman,  superintendent  or  man- 
ager, who  shall  violate  or  fail  to  comply  with  any  of  the  provisions 
of  this  act,  or  shall  refuse  admittance  to  any  officer  or  person  author- 
ized to  visit  or  inspect  any  premises  or  place  of  business  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act,  or  shall  otherwise  obstruct  such  officers  in 
the  performance  of  their  duties  as  prescribed  by  this  act,  shall  be 
guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  upon  conviction  shall  be  fined  not  less 
than  five  dollars  ($5.00)  or  more  than  one  hundred  dollars  ($100.00) 
or  be  imprisoned  not  less  than  two  days  or  more  than  thirty  days. 

Sec.  11.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  to  carry  out  and  enforce  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  every  sheriff  or  city  or  town  marshal, 
when  informed  by  any  officer  authorized  to  inspect  places  where  la- 
bor is  employed,  that  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  have  been 
violated,  to  file  or  cause  to  be  filed  information  or  informations 
against  the  person  or  persons  guilty  of  such  offense  and  to  notify 
the  city  solicitor  or  county  attorney  thereof,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  every  city  solicitor  and  county  attorney  so  notified  of  the  filing 
of  an  information,  to  attend  and  prosecute  the  same.  Any  county 
attorney,  sheriff,  city  solicitor  or  a  city  or  town  marshal  who  shall 
fail  or  refuse  to  perform  any  duties  prescribed  by  this  section  shall 
be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor. 

Sec.  12.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  with  the  provisions 
of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed. 

This  elaborate  bill  was  introduced  in  the  Senate  on  Jan- 
uary 30  by  C.  C.  Dowell  of  Polk  County,  was  favorably  re- 
ported by  the  Judiciary  Committee,  was  amended  by  except- 
ing mercantile  establishments  from  the  provisions  of  section 
one  and  by  striking  out  section  seven  relative  to  the  employ- 
ment of  illiterate  children,  and  was  finally  passed  on  February 
18  by  a  vote  of  thirty-nine  to  eight.*^''^ 

In  the  House  the  bill  encountered  a  more  determined  op- 
position.    A   majority   of   the    Representatives   were    from 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  131 

country  districts  or  small  towns,  and  while  anxious  to  pro- 
mote the  best  interests  of  the  State  they  were  unacquainted 
with  the  conditions  in  the  larger  cities  that  made  a  child 
labor  law  necessary.  Many  of  the  members  honestly  believed 
that  the  proposed  law  "would  throw  boys  on  the  streets  to 
spend  the  time  in  idleness,  who  would  be  much  better  off 
and  make  better  citizens  if  employed."  Some  thought  the 
bill  too  inclusive;  and  much  was  made  of  the  prohibition  of 
work  during  school  hours  in  section  one,  which  was  held  to 
affect  boys  on  the  farm.  Special  interests,  notably  the  can- 
ning establishments  and  the  button  factories,  protested  that 
"their  business  would  be  ruined"  if  they  were  not  permitted 
to  employ  children  under  fourteen.  Many  objections  were 
raised  to  the  twofold  certificate  plan  as  needlessly  cumbrous. 
The  sole-support-of-a-widowed-mother  argument  was  used 
with  considerable  effect.'*®^ 

These  arguments,  aided  by  legislative  inertia  and  the  nat- 
ural conservatism  of  rural  members,  sufficed  to  defeat  the  bill. 
The  Child  Labor  Committee  of  the  Federated  Women's  Clubs 
and  the  Legislative  Committee  of  the  State  Federation  of  La- 
bor, under  the  leadership  of  President  A.  L.  Urick,  used  every 
exertion  in  support  of  their  favorite  measure.*^^  Petitions 
poured  in  from  the  local  unions  and  clubs,  and  from  benevo- 
lent societies  throughout  the  State  the  Representatives  were 
flooded  with  literature  showing  the  evils  of  child  labor.*^^ 
Yet  in  spite  of  all  efforts,  and  notwithstanding  the  support 
of  many  of  the  leaders  of  the  House,  the  final  vote  stood 
fifty-five  nays  to  thirty-five  yeas.*'^^ 

Inasmuch  as  the  objections  raised  to  the  child  labor  bill  of 
1904  were  again  put  forward  in  1906  and  are  likely  to  be 
urged  in  the  future  against  proposed  extensions  of  the  pres- 
ent law,  it  may  be  well  to  devote  some  space  to  a  discussion 
of  them. 

First.  It  is  argued  that  work  is  better  for  the  child  than 
idleness,  that  regular  employment  for  wages  possesses  distinct 
disciplinary  and  educational  value. 


132         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

This  argument  assumes  that  if  children  are  not  allowed 
to  work  in  factories  and  stores,  they  will  be  thrown  upon 
the  street.  It  appears  to  be  forgotten  that  the  public  schools 
are  open  nine  months  in  the  year  and  that  school  attendance 
has  a  higher  educational  value  for  young  children  than  any 
form  of  gainful  employment. 

The  responsibilities  of  life  come  quite  early  enough  at 
sixteen.  The  prolongation  of  the  period  of  infancy  makes 
for  a  higher  type  of  manhood  and  womanhood.  Play  itself 
is  an  important  means  of  development.  It  is  the  natural  per- 
quisite of  the  young — human  as  well  as  animal. 

To  keep  children  off  the  street  becomes  a  serious  problem 
in  the  larger  cities.  But  public  playgrounds  and  out-of-doors 
vacation  schools  are  far  better  solutions  of  this  problem  than 
putting  the  little  ones  into  factories. 

Second.  Self-made  men  often  deny  that  labor  injures  the 
child,  citing  their  own  experience  in  confirmation.  ''I  had 
to  work  when  I  was  a  boy,"  declared  more  than  one  member 
of  the  legislature,  "and  I  don't  believe  it  hurt  me  any."  But 
the  work  which  these  men  did  as  boys  was  usually  not  done 
in  coal  mines,  department  stores,  or  large  factories.  The 
object  of  the  law  is  not  to  forbid  all  employments,  but  those 
only  which  threaten  the  health  or  morals,  or  interfere  with 
the  education  of  the  child.  And  there  can  be  no  doubt,  not- 
withstanding some  individual  exceptions,  that  hard  and  con- 
tinuous labor,  particularly  when  performed  indoors,  is  physi- 
ologically injurious  to  children  below  the  age  of  sixteen 
years.^^2  That  the  moral  influences  of  factory  labor  are  not 
good  is  just  as  little  open  to  question. 

Third.  Country  legislators  object  to  the  prohibition  of 
employment  during  school  hours,  on  the  ground  that  farmers 
need  the  help  of  their  boys  in  the  plowing  and  corn-husking 
seasons. 

This  argument,  like  the  others,  will  not  bear  analysis.  It 
is  affirmed  that  the  labor  of  boys  under  fourteen  is  not  in- 
dispensable to  the  prosperity  of  any  large  number  of  Iowa 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  133 

fanners.  No  ob.iection  can  be  offered  to  a  moderate  amount 
of  home  work  during  vacation  and  on  Saturdays,  or  to  morn- 
ing and  evening  chores,  so  long  as  these  do  not  interfere 
with  the  child's  progress  at  school.  But  there  can  seldom  be 
any  justification  for  keeping  a  fourteen-year  old  boy  out  of 
school  to  help  with  the  work  on  the  farm.  The  completion  of 
a  common  school  course  is  worth  far  more  to  the  child,  even 
in  an  economic  view,  than  the  value  to  his  parents  of  any 
services  he  may  render  at  home. 

Fourth.  In  reply  to  the  contention  of  the  canners,  but- 
ton-makers, and  other  special  interests  that  a  child  labor  law 
would  drive  these  industries  out  of  Iowa,  it  is  sufficient  to 
cite  the  experience  of  other  States.  Legislation  quite  as 
stringent  as  that  proposed  in  Mr.  Baily's  bill  has  not  checked 
the  growth  of  vegetable  canning  and  preserving  in  Illinois 
or  New  York.*'^^  Nor  has  such  legislation  prevented  the  lat- 
ter State  from  outstripping  Iowa  in  the  business  of  button 
finishing — the  only  department  of  button-making  in  which  child 
labor  is  an  important  factor.  In  1900  our  own  State  excelled 
every  other  State  in  the  production  both  of  buttons  and  of 
buttons  blanks  from  fresh-water  shells;  in  1905  New  York 
had  forged  ahead  in  the  number  and  value  of  finished  but- 
tons, though  Iowa  still  maintained  a  great  lead  in  blank-cut- 
ting which  is  done  almost  entirely  by  men.*"^^  Such  facts 
would  seem  to  show  that  these  businesses  can  be  profitably 
carried  on  without  the  employment  of  children  under  fourteen. 

Child  labor  is  in  fact  unprofitable,  as  the  writer  has  been 
repeatedly  assured  by  the  employers  themselves.  ''We  don't 
want  the  babies,"  said  the  largest  button  manufacturer  in 
Iowa,  ''they  don't  watch  their  business  and  they  spoil  too 
many  buttons."  The  manager  of  an  up-to-date  department 
store  estimated  the  first  cost  of  the  automatic  carrier  system 
there  used  at  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  and  the  annual  main- 
tenance charge,  including  interest,  at  two  hundred  dollars. 
It  does  the  work  of  six  children  at  one  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars per  year  each,  besides  saving  floor  space,  avoiding  con- 

10 


134         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

fusion  in  the  aisles,  and  quickening  the  delivery  of  goods  to 
the  customer — a  very  important  consideration.  "Where  chil- 
dren are  used,"  declared  this  manager,  "the  salesman  often 
has  to  call  'bundle'  or  'cash'  two  or  three  times  before  he 
can  get  attention."  The  floorwalker  in  another  store  re- 
marked that  "it  takes  one  man  with  a  club  to  keep  the  kids 
in  their  places."  About  twenty  children  are  employed  in 
this  store. 

The  above  are  typical  statements.  They  indicate  strongly 
that  the  fear  of  permanently  hindering  industrial  development 
by  restraining  the  exploitation  of  childhood  is  without  foun- 
dation in  fact. 

Fifth.  It  is  often  urged  by  the  defenders  of  child  labor 
that  many  families  and  many  widowed  mothers  especially 
are  wholly  dependent  upon  the  earnings  of  young  children 
for  the  means  of  subsistence.  The  poor-widow  argument,  as 
it  is  called,  has  done  duty  for  more  than  a  century  whenever 
it  has  been  proposed  to  place  any  restriction  upon  the  em- 
ployment of  children,  but  it  is  not  well  supported  by  the  facts. 
The  United  States  Census  Bureau  recently  made  a  detailed 
study  of  23,657  wage-earners  between  the  ages  of  ten  and 
fifteen.*^^  These  children  belonged  to  20,402  families,  com- 
prising 44,618  older  bread  winners.  In  only  3,958  cases,  or 
16.7  per  cent  of  the  entire  number  investigated,  was  a  child 
worker  living  with  a  widowed,  divorced,  or  deserted  mother; 
and  but  188  families,  or  less  than  one  per  cent,  had  no  bread 
winner  past  fourteen.  These  188  families  had  632  dependents, 
an  average  of  3.36  each — clearly  too  many  to  subsist  on  the 
earnings  of  one  or  two  young  children.  Since  such  families 
must  receive  outside  assistance  in  any  case,  it  seems  better 
for  society  to  support  them  outright  than  to  sacrifice  the  fu- 
ture of  children  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  misfortune  of 
their  parents.  As  for  the  17,956  child  bread  winners — ^more 
than  three-fourths  of  the  whole  number  included  in  the  re- 
port— who  were  li\'ing  with  father  and  mother  and  generally 
with  older  brothers  and  sisters,  some  other  cause  than  destitu- 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  135 

tion  must  be  sought  for  their  employment.  Sometimes  this 
cause  is  found  in  family  extravagance  or  mismanagement. 
Again  it  is  short-sighted  thrift  or  pure  avarice.  Very  often 
children  desire  to  work  on  their  own  account  in  order  to  have 
pocket  money  or  to  escape  from  school.  All  too  frequently 
it  is  idleness  and  dissipation  on  the  part  of  the  father  which 
forces  the  mother  to  put  her  children  to  work.*'^® 

The  opponents  of  child  labor  were  not  disheartened  by 
their  defeat  in  1904.  So  far  from  giving  up  the  contest,  they 
at  once  set  about  securing  a  more  effective  organization.  Dr. 
Samuel  McCune  Lindsay,  Secretary  of  the  National  Child 
Labor  Committee,  twice  visited  Iowa  during  the  ensuing  year, 
and  upon  his  initiative  the  Iowa  Child  Labor  Committee,  com- 
prising many  of  the  most  prominent  men  and  women  of  the 
State,  was  formed  early  in  1905.  Somewhat  later  an  Execu- 
tive Committee  was  chosen  by  ballot.  The  membership  of 
this  sub-committee,  upon  which  devolved  the  active  duties  of 
legislative  management,  was  as  follows :  Professor  Isaac  A. 
Loos  of  The  State  University  of  Iowa,  Chairman;  Mrs.  A.  B. 
Cummins ;  Commissioner  of  Labor  E.  D.  Brigham ;  Mr.  A.  L. 
Urick,  President  of  the  State  Federation  of  Labor;  Mrs.  T.  J. 
Fletcher  of  Marshalltown ;  Mrs.  J.  C.  Hallam  of  Sioux  City, 
and  President  A.  B.  Storms  of  the  Iowa  State  College.*^'^ 
The  purpose  of  the  organization,  as  stated  by  Professor  Loos, 
was  to  assist  in  "creating  a  clear  and  well-defined  public  opin- 
ion in  favor  of  the  timeliness  of  a  properly  framed  law  on 
this  subject  before  those  evils  associated  with  unregulated 
child  labor  fasten  themselves  in  the  life  of  our  Common- 
wealth. "^^^ 

A  campaign  of  education  was  carried  on  through  the  sum- 
mer and  fall.  The  State  Federation  of  Labor  had  begun  to 
issue  a  series  of  child  labor  leaflets  in  the  preceding  Septem- 
ber. Six  numbers  in  all  were  published  and  a  total  of  thirty- 
five  thousand  copies  distributed.*'^^  Club  women,  labor  unions, 
and  humanitarian  organizations  took  up  the  agitation.  Mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  were  made  to  feel  that  there  was  a 


136         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

genuine  public  demand  for  a  law  regulating  the  employment 
of  children. 

In  the  Thirty-first  General  Assembly  (1906)  the  subject 
of  child  labor  received  early  and  large  attention.  The  rep- 
resentatives of  the  Iowa  Child  Labor  Committee  spared  no 
effort  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  law,  while  the  special  in- 
terests opposed  to  such  legislation  were  also  well  represented. 
Mr.  Baily's  bill,  redrawn  to  meet  some  of  the  objections 
raised  at  the  preceding  session,  was  simultaneously  re-intro- 
duced in  both  Houses  on  January  20,  1906,  and  again  passed 
through  a  long  and  varied  legislative  experience.*^^ 

Mr.  William  S.  Hart  of  Waukon,  who  had  charge  of  the 
House  bill,  presented  a  substitute  measure  which  was  ac- 
ceptable to  the  advocates  of  the  proposed  legislation,  and  which 
became  the  basis  of  the  present  law.^^^  The  Hart  substitute 
was  favorably  reported  on  February  15  by  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  and  after  receiving  several  amendments  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  passed  that  body  by  a  vote  of  sixty-four 
to  twenty-four  on  February  20.*^^ 

In  the  Senate,  the  Judiciary  Committee  kept  the  House 
bill  for  three  weeks  and  then  brought  in  a  substitute  on  March 
10,  which  with  slight  change  was  adopted  three  days  later 
by  a  vote  of  forty-six  to  four.^^^  The  House  refusing  to  con- 
cur in  the  Senate  substitute,  a  conference  committee  was  ap- 
pointed consisting  of  Representatives  Hart,  Clary,  Carsten- 
sen,  and  Cummings,  and  Senators  Dowell,  Courtright,  Whip- 
ple, and  Jackson — all  friends  of  the  proposed  legislation.  The 
report  of  this  committee  was  adopted  in  both  Houses  on  April 
2  and  became  a  law  upon  the  approval  of  the  Grovernor.*^* 

To  recount  in  detail  all  the  alterations  made  by  the  various 
substitutes,  amendments,  and  reports,  would  be  tedious  and 
unprofitable.  But  for  the  sake  of  comparison  the  full  texts 
of  the  Hart  substitute  and  of  the  law  as  passed  are  given 
below.  (Portions  of  the  substitute  bill  omitted  in  the  law  are 
bracketed,  provisions  of  the  law  not  found  in  the  Hart  sub- 
stitute are  italicized.) 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  137 

Section  1.  No  person  under  fourteen  years  of  age  [,  and  no 
person  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  who  is  less  than  sixty  inches  in 
height  and  eighty  pounds  in  weight,]  shall  be  employed  with  or  with- 
out wages  or  compensation  [,]  in  any  mine,  [quarry,]  manufacturing 
establishment,  factory,  mill,  shop,  laundry,  slaughter  house  or  pack- 
ing house,  [or  bowling  alley,]  or  in  any  store  or  mercantile  establish- 
ment [,]  where  [eight  or  more]  more  than  eight  persons  are 
employed,  or  in  the  operation  of  any  freight  or  passenger  elevator. 

Sec.  2.  No  person  under  [eighteen]  sixteen  years  of  age  shall 
be  employed  at  any  work  or  occupation  [,]  hy  which,  by  reason  of  its 
nature  or  the  place  of  employment,  [is  dangerous  to  life  or  limb,  or 
in  which]  the  health  of  such  person  may  be  injured,  or  his  morals 
depraved,  [ ;]  or  at  any  work  in  ivhich  the  handling  or  use  of  gun 
powder,  dynamite  or  other  like  explosive  is  required,  and  no  female 
under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  employed  in  any  capacity  where 
the  duties  of  such  employment  compel  [Is]  her  to  remain  constantly 
standing. 

Sec.  3.  No  person  under  sixteen  years  of  age  shall  be  em- 
ployed at  any  of  the  places  or  in  any  of  the  occupations  recited  in 
section  1  hereof  before  the  hour  of  six  o  'clock  in  the  morning  or  after 
the  hour  of  nine  o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  if  such  person  is  employed 
exceeding  five  hours  of  each  day,  a  noon  intermission  of  not  less  than 
thirty  minutes  shall  be  given  between  the  hours  of  eleven  and  one 
o'clock,  and  such  person  shall  not  be  employed  more  than  ten  hours 
in  any  one  day,  exclusive  of  the  noon  intermission,  hut  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section  shall  not  apply  to  persons  employed  in  husking 
sheds  or  other  places  connected  with  canning  factories  where  vege- 
tables or  grain  are  prepared  for  canning  and  in  which  no  machinery 
is  operated. 

[Sec.  4.  No  person  under  sixteen  years  of  age,  who  cannot  write 
legibly  and  read  ordinary  sentences  in  the  English  language,  shall  be 
employed  at  any  of  the  places  or  in  any  of  the  employments  recited 
in  section  1  hereof  when  school  is  in  session  in  the  district  where  such 
work  is  performed  unless  there  shall  be  filed  in  the  office  or  other 
place  of  business  of  such  employer  in  the  place  of  such  employment, 
a  certificate  either  by  the  secretary  of  a  school  board,  or  the  superin- 
tendent, principal,  or  other  person  in  charge  of  a  school,  that  such 
person  has  attended  school  not  less  than  twelve  weeks  between  the 
time  of  such  employment  and  the  first  day  of  the  next  preceding 
September.] 


138         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Sec.  [5]  4.  Every  person,  firm  or  corporation  having  in  its  em- 
ploy, at  any  of  the  places  or  in  any  of  the  occupations  recited  in  sec- 
tion 1  of  this  act,  any  persons  under  [eighteen]  sixteen  years  of  age, 
shall  cause  to  be  posted  at  some  conspicuous  location  at  the  place  of 
[said]  such  employment,  and  where  same  shall  he  accessible  to  in- 
spection at  all  times  during  business  hours,  a  list  of  the  names  of 
such  persons,  giving  after  each  name,  the  date  of  the  birth  of  such 
person  [,  nature  of  employment  of  such  person,]  and  the  date  when 
employed  [,  time  of  commencement  of  work  and  time  of  quitting 
work  each  day,  time  allowed  for  noon  intermission  and  hour  of  com- 
mencement thereof,  height  and  weight  of  such  person  at  time  of  em- 
ployment; and  shall  at  the  time  of  employment  of  any  such  person, 
transmit  a  statement  containing  all  of  the  above  information  upon  a 
blank  furnished  by  commissioner  of  bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  by 
mail,  to  said  commissioner  at  his  office  at  Des  Moines]. 

Sec.  [6.]  5.  Any  parent,  guardian  or  other  person,  who  having 
under  his  control  any  person  under  sixteen  years  of  age  causes  or 
permits  said  person  to  work  or  be  employed  in  violation  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act,  or  any  person  making,  certifying  to,  or  causing 
to  be  made  or  certified  to,  any  statement,  certificate  or  other  paper 
for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  employment  of  any  person  in  viola- 
tion of  the  provisions  of  this  act,  or  who  makes,  files,  executes  or  de- 
livers any  such  statement,  certificate  or  other  paper  containing  any 
false  statement  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  employment  of  any 
person  in  violation  of  this  act,  or  for  the  purpose  of  concealing  the 
violation  of  this  act  in  such  employment,  and  every  person,  firm  or 
corporation,  or  the  agent,  manager,  superintendent,  or  officer  of  any 
person,  firm  or  corporation,  whether  for  himself  or  such  person,  firm 
or  corporation,  either  by  himself  or  acting  through  any  agent,  fore- 
man, superintendent  or  manager,  who  knowingly  employs  any  per- 
son or  permits  any  person  to  be  employed  in  violation  of  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act,  or  who  shall  refuse  to  allow  any  authorized  officer 
or  person  to  inspect  any  place  of  business  under  the  provisions  of 
this  act,  if  demand  is  made  therefor  at  any  time  during  business 
hours  [,]  or  who  shall  willfully  obstruct  such  officer  or  person  while 
making  such  inspection,  [or  who  shall  falsely  certify  to  any  of  the 
facts  with  reference  to  the  persons  employed  by  such  person,  firm 
or  corporation  as  required  by  this  act,]  or  who  shall  fail  to  keep 
posted  the  lists  containing  the  names  of  persons  employed  under 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  139 

[eighteen]  sixteen  years  of  age  and  other  information  as  required  by 
this  act,  or  who  shall  knowingly  insert  any  false  statement  in  such 
list,  for  who  fails  to  furnish  the  information  with  reference  to  such 
employment  to  the  commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics 
as  required  by  this  act,]  or  who  violates  any  other  provision  of  this 
act,  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  being  found 
guilty  thereof,  shall  be  fined  not  to  exceed  one  hundred  dollars  or  be 
imprisoned  in  the  county  jail  not  to  exceed  thirty  days. 

Sec.  [7.]  6.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commissioner  of  the 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  to  enforce  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and 
such  commissioner  and  his  deputies,  factory  inspectors,  assistants  and 
and  other  persons  authorized  by  him  in  writing,  state  mine  inspectors, 
and  county  attorneys,  mayors,  chiefs  of  police  and  police  officers, 
acting  under  their  written  directions,  city  and  town  marshals,  sheriffs 
and  their  deputies  within  the  territories  where  they  exercise  their 
official  functions,  and  any  person  having  authority  therefor  in  writ> 
ing  from  the  judge  of  a  court  of  record  within  the  territory  over 
which  such  judge  has  jurisdiction,  shall  have  authority  to  visit  any 
of  the  places  enumerated  in  section  1  of  this  act,  and  make  an  inspec- 
tion thereof  to  ascertain  if  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  are  vio- 
lated or  any  person  unlaAvfully  employed  thereat,  and  such  persons 
shall  not  be  interfered  with  or  prevented  from  asking  questions  of 
any  person  found  at  the  place  being  inspected  by  them  with  reference 
to  the  provisions  of  this  act. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  county  attorney  to  investigate  all  com- 
plaints made  to  him  of  the  violation  of  this  act,  and  to  attend  and 
prosecute  at  the  trial  of  all  cases  for  its  violation  upon  any  informa- 
tion that  may  be  filed  within  his  county. 

Sec.  [8]  7.  All  acts  and  parts  of  acts  in  conflict  with  the  pro- 
visions of  this  act  are  hereby  repealed.^^^ 

Some  of  the  differences  between  the  bill  and  the  law  are 
so  signiiacant  as  to  deserve  discussion. 

The  omission  of  bowling  alleys  from  the  list  of  prohibited 
places  of  employment  has  nothing  apparently  to  commend  it 
but  the  wishes  of  interested  parties.  This  omission  was  made 
by  the  House,  upon  the  motion  of  Flenniken  of  Clayton  Coun- 
ty.*^® The  House  also  altered  section  two  by  omitting  the 
prohibition  of  employment  in  places  dangerous  to  life  or  limb, 


140         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

changed  eig-hteen  to  sixteen  years  in  sections  two,  five,  and 
six  of  the  bill  as  reported,  and  struck  out  all  of  section  four — 
the  last  on  motion  of  the  author  of  the  bill.*^'^  Mr.  Hart's 
motive  in  thus  emasculating  his  own  measure  appears  to  have 
been  to  conciliate  opposition.  The  elided  section  would  have 
encouraged  school  attendance  by  illiterates  between  the  ages 
of  fourteen  and  sixteen,  but  it  would  have  been  difficult  of  en- 
forcement, and  was  not  really  very  important.  The  object 
sought  could  be  better  secured  by  an  extension  of  the  com- 
pulsory education  law. 

Quite  different  was  the  case  of  stone  quarries.  These  es- 
tablishments are  in  Iowa  usually  worked  near  the  surface, 
so  that  except  as  regards  dust  they  are  not  especially  un- 
wholesome. On  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  high  explosives 
in  rock  blasting  makes  this  employment  particularly  dan- 
gerous for  young  boys.  Quarrymen  were,  however,  very  anx- 
ious to  have  their  business  exempted  from  the  operation  of 
the  child  labor  law.  While  the  bill  was  pending  before  the 
House,  Representative  Bealer  of  Linn  County  moved  to  strike 
''quarry"  from  section  1.  This  amendment  was  lost,*^^  but 
the  desired  omission  was  secured  in  the  Senate  substitute 
for  the  House  bill.*^^  The  conference  committee  then  in- 
serted the  prohibition  of  the  employment  of  persons  under 
sixteen  at  any  work  requiring  the  use  of  explosives.  This 
prohibition  does  not  exclude  children  under  sixteen  from  quar- 
ries or  mines,  but  only  prevents  their  employment  in  blasting 
operations.*^^ 

The  canning  industry  asked  and  received  tender  treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  the  legislature.  This  industry  is  of 
recent  introduction  in  Iowa  and  has  had  a  phenomenal 
growth.  The  value  of  canned  vegetables,  principally  corn 
and  tomatoes,  more  than  doubled  in  the  five-year  period  1900- 
1905,  while  the  State  advanced  from  ninth  to  fiLfth  place  in 
this  branch  of  industry.  Canned  corn  alone  formed  more 
than  nine-tenths  of  the  total,  and  in  this  one  item  Iowa  was, 
in  1905,  first  among  the  States  of  the  Union.*^^    New  estab- 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  141 

lishments  were  being  opened  each  year,  many  of  them  in 
places  where  no  manufacture  had  before  existed.  It  was 
feared  that  the  prohibition  of  child  labor  might  check  the 
growth  of  the  industry.  Many  children,  some  of  them  not 
over  ten  years  old,  were  employed  in  these  establishments, 
mostly  in  the  husking  sheds  and  packing  rooms.*^^  It  was 
claimed  on  behalf  of  the  canners  that  the  children  were  not 
required  to  operate  dangerous  machinery  or  to  work  in  un- 
sanitary rooms,  that  many  of  them  were  accompanied  by  their 
mothers,  and  that,  since  most  of  the  factories  were  in  opera- 
tion only  fifty  or  sixty  days  during  the  months  of  August  and 
September,*''^  employment  therein  did  not  interfere  with 
school  attendance.^®^  The  advocates  of  the  child  labor  law 
replied  that  the  working  day  of  the  canneries  is  excessively 
long — in  many  cases  twelve  or  fourteen  hours — that  packing 
rooms  are  not  particularly  wholesome,  and  that  children  un- 
der fourteen  years  of  age  are  required  to  start  to  school  in 
September. 

The  result  of  this  discussion  was  a  compromise.  An 
amendment  offered  by  Senator  Bruce  of  Atlantic  (a  center 
of  the  canning  industry)  '^that  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
not  apply  to  children  employed  in  the  work  of  canning  fac- 
tories between  the  first  days  of  July  and  December  of  each 
year"  was  rejected  by  the  Senate.*^^  Later  the  conference 
committee  was  prevailed  upon  to  except  ''husking  sheds  or 
other  places  where  vegetables  or  grain  are  prepared  for 
canning  and  in  which  no  machinery  is  operated"  from  the 
provisions  of  section  three,  limiting  the  hours  of  work  for 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen  years  in 
certain  rooms  before  six  o  'clock  in  the  morning  or  after  eight 
o'clock  in  the  evening  and  for  more  than  ten  hours  per  day. 
Since  most  of  these  establishments  are  not  operated  at  night 
the  only  practical  effect  of  the  excepting  clause  is  to  permit 
the  exaction  of  twelve  hours  labor  from  persons  under  six- 
teen— a  doubtful  benefit  to  the  canneries  and  an  unquestion- 
able injury  to  the  children. 


142         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

ENFORCEMENT    OF    THE    CHILD    LABOR    LAW 

The  Child  Labor  Act  went  into  operation  July  4,  1906, 
and  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  at  once  took  steps  to 
secure  its  enforcement.  Several  thousand  copies  of  the  law 
were  distributed  to  employers,  and  the  officers  of  the  Bureau 
in  their  tours  of  the  State  directed  the  discharge  of  the  chil- 
dren within  the  prohibited  age  whom  they  found  at  work  and 
the  posting  of  lists  of  employees  under  sixteen.  These  recom- 
mendations were  generally  complied  with,  most  employers 
manifesting  willingness  to  conform  to  the  law.  No  prosecu- 
tions were  undertaken  during  the  first  year,  it  being  the  policy 
of  the  Bureau  to  secure  observation  of  the  law  so  far  as 
possible  without  litigation.*^^  This  policy  is  still  pursued, 
but  persistent  violators  are  now  being  prosecuted.  Fifty-six 
informations  were  filed  between  the  months  of  January  and 
October,  1907,  mostly  in  the  larger  centers  of  industry.  Up 
to  the  last  mentioned  date  there  had  been  fifty-two  convictions, 
with  four  cases  still  pending,  the  defendants  usually  pleading 
guilty.  The  fines  were  very  light,  generally  one  dollar  for  a 
parent  and  five  or  ten  for  an  employer.*^'^  Yet  the  prosecu- 
tions had  a  most  wholesome  effect.  Employers,  especially, 
disliking  the  publicity  involved,  became  more  careful  about 
employing  children  of  doubtful  age. 

Thus  far  the  enforcement  of  the  law  has  devolved  upon 
the  State  Bureau  of  Labor,  aided  in  some  instances  by  the 
labor  unions.  Local  police  authorities,  as  was  to  be  expected, 
have  taken  no  action,  though  truant  officers  where  they  have 
been  appointed  are  effective  in  keeping  children  out  of  fac- 
tories and  stores  during  the  months  to  which  the  compulsory 
school  law  applies.  Judges  of  the  district  court  are  author- 
ized to  appoint  local  inspector s,*^^  but  so  far  as  is  known 
none  have  ever  been  appointed. 

The  writer  has  personally  investigated  the  working  of 
the  child  labor  law  in  a  number  of  centers  of  industry,  and 
has  sent  letters  of  inquiry  to  labor  leaders  and  others  inter- 
ested in  all  parts  of  the  State.     From  these  investigations  and 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  143 

inquiries  it  appears  that  the  law  is  now  fairly  well  enforced — 
''as  well  as  any  similar  law  on  our  statute  books. "^^^  But 
there  are  still  numerous  violations  in  the  department  stores, 
packing  houses,  button  factories,  box  factories,  broom  works, 
non-union  cigar  shops,  and  in  canning  establishments  from 
July  to  October.  The  canneries,  supported  in  most  places  by 
local  public  opinion,  openly  violate  the  law.  Mothers  bring 
their  children  of  all  ages  to  the  husking  sheds,  and  any  one 
who  can  strip  husks  from  an  ear  of  corn  is  allowed  to 
work.  In  union  establishments  of  all  kinds,  on  the  other 
hand,  not  only  is  the  law  strictly  enforced  but  its  require- 
ments are  commonly  exceeded.  The  law  is  most  thoroughly 
enforced  in  the  mining  industry,  which  is  the  best  organized 
trade  in  the  State,  It  is  doubtful  whether  boys  under  four- 
teen years  old  could  be  found  in  any  coal  mine  in  Iowa.  Very 
few  are  allowed  to  work  in  the  mines  who  are  below  the  age 
of  sixteen. 

DEFECTS  OP   THE  PRESENT  LAW 

First.  The  State  Bureau  of  Labor  has  been  greatly 
hampered  in  its  efforts  to  enforce  the  law  by  the  difficulty  of 
securing  proof  of  violation.  No  evidence  of  the  child's  age 
is  now  required  beyond  the  unsupported  statement  of  the 
parent.  Parents  are  often  insistent  on  putting  their  children 
to  work,  and  employers,  even  when  well  disposed  toward  the 
law,  are  easily  deceived.  The  writer's  observations,  as  well 
as  extensive  inquiries,  lead  him  to  believe  that  falsification  is 
common.^^^  To  hunt  out  every  suspected  case  and  test  the 
parents'  statement  by  comparison  with  the  public  records  is, 
with  the  limited  field  force  of  the  Bureau,  altogether  out  of 
the  question.  Age  certificates  ought  to  be  issued  by  public 
authority  and  only  upon  positive  proof  of  age,  as  by  pro- 
duction of  the  certificate  or  register  of  birth  or  baptism,  the 
school  census,  or  other  official  record.  Such  a  provision  based 
upon  the  experience  of  other  States,  formed  a  part  of  the 
original  Baily  bill,^°^  but  was  omitted  in  Mr.  Hart's  substi- 
tute because  of  the  opposition  it  had  before  excited.     The 


144         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Commissioner  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  has 
asked  that  the  present  law  be  amended  so  as  to  place  upon 
the  employer  and  the  parent  the  burden  of  proving  the  age 
of  a  suspected  child.^*^^  ^i^q}^  an  amendment  would  add  much 
to  the  efficiency  of  the  law. 

Second.  The  present  law  is  not  inclusive  enough.  The 
reasons  for  forbidding  children  to  work  in  factories  and  stores 
are  equally  applicable  to  their  employment  in  offices,  hotels, 
and  public  restaurants,  and  in  the  express,  delivery,  and  mes- 
senger service.  The  hours  exacted  in  all  these  employments 
are  often  unreasonably  long.  Some  of  them  necessarily  in- 
volve exposure  to  the  inclemencies  of  the  weather;  and  the 
driving  of  a  team  on  city  streets,  where  that  is  allowed,  may 
fairly  be  described  as  dangerous  for  a  boy  under  fourteen. 
But  the  peril  to  the  morals  of  children  is  much  greater  in  all 
these  occupations  than  the  danger  to  their  health.  The  av- 
erage business  office  or  hotel  lobby  is  certainly  no  fit  place 
for  a  young  child.  Even  worse  are  the  influences  of  the  street 
to  which  messenger  and  delivery  boys  are  constantly  exposed. 
Worst  of  all,  the  messengers  of  the  Western  Union  and  Postal 
Telegrai:)h  companies  are  frequently  sent  to  the  red  light 
districts  where  they  make  the  acquaintance  of  prostitutes  and 
are  petted  by  them  and  given  presents  of  fruit  and  candy.^*^^ 

Third.  The  moral  objections  to  child  labor  apply  with 
even  greater  force  to  bowling-alleys,  theatres,  circuses,  and 
other  places  of  public  amusement.  The  law  does,  to  be  sure, 
forbid  the  employment  of  persons  under  sixteen  in  any  place 
where  their  health  may  be  injured  or  their  morals  depraved. 
But  this  provision  is  too  vague  to  be  of  much  practical  value. 
At  all  events,  children  under  fourteen  are  still  employed  as 
pin  boys,  ballet  singers,  and  acrobatic  performers — all  of 
which  occupations  directly  tend  to  "deprave  the  morals"  if 
not  to  "injure  the  health"  of  the  child.  There  ought  to  be 
a  specific  enumeration  of  objectionable  employments. 

Fourth.  There  is  likewise  need  for  some  regulation  of 
the  street  trades.    Scores  of  newsboys,  bootblacks,  and  street 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  145 

venders  in  our  large  towns  are  under  the  age  of  twelve  years, 
and  not  a  few  are  under  ten.^"*  Sometimes  a  much  younger 
child  is  employed  as  a  decoy  by  an  older  brother.  Taking  his 
stand  a  little  way  down  the  street,  where  his  partner  shall 
not  be  visible,  the  tot  accosts  the  passer-by  with  '^Please, 
mister,  buy  a  paper."  The  pathetic  appeal  of  the  tiny  voice 
seldom  fails  of  the  desired  effect. 

Both  the  health  and  morals  of  very  young  children  are 
menaced  by  permitting  them  to  engage  in  street-vending. 
From  September  to  June  those  who  are  under  fourteen  are 
mostly  employed  out  of  school  hours.  Beginning  work  at  four 
in  the  afternoon,  they  frequently  do  not  reach  home  until  nine 
0  'clock  or  even  later — long  past  dark  in  the  winter  season.  If 
they  handle  morning  papers  as  well  they  must  be  out  before 
daylight.  Think  of  an  eleven  year  old  child  spending  thirty 
hours  a  week  in  school  and  perhaps  thirty  or  forty  hours 
mornings,  evenings,  and  Saturdays  selling  papers.^^^  Add  to 
this  the  cold  fingers  and  wet  feet  often  unavoidable  in  our 
climate,  not  to  mention  the  danger  from  passing  vehicles,  and 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  trade  of  a  newsboy  is  not  exactly  con- 
ducive to  longevity.  The  moral  injury  comes  from  premature 
contact  with  vice  in  its  most  glittering  forms,  from  improper 
association  with  older  children,  and  from  the  contraction  of 
habits  easily  formed  but  difficult  to  eradicate.  ''Sleep-outs" 
or  semi-vagrants,  ''gangs",  juvenile  offenders  of  every  class, 
are  largely  recruited  from  the  street  trades.^^^ 

On  behalf  of  unregulated  street  vending  we  meet  the  same 
old  arguments  with  which  we  are  already  familiar — the  neces- 
sities of  business,  the  needs  of  the  parents,  the  valuable  train- 
ing acquired  by  the  child.  In  reply  to  the  first  of  these  argu- 
ments, it  may  be  said  that  it  has  never  been  shown  that  news- 
papers cannot  be  cheaply  and  effectually  distributed  without 
being  sold  by  young  children.  The  plea  from  family  necessity 
will  not  bear  examination.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the 
juvenile  street-venders  come  from  comfortable  homes — homes 
where  the  father's  income  is  ample  for  the  support  of  the 


146         HISTORY  OP  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

family.  The  earnings  of  children  under  fourteen  are  far  more 
often  spent  as  pocket  money  than  contributed  to  the  family 
exchequer.^^"^  Finally,  the  license  and  the  irregularity  of  the 
street  do  not  constitute  a  valuable  preparation  for  life.  The 
newsboy  does,  indeed,  acquire  a  worldly  wisdom  far  beyond 
his  years.  But  most  of  this  knowledge  he  would  be  better  off 
without,  and  the  premature  forcing  of  his  intelligence  too 
often  results  in  premature  exhaustion.  It  is  the  familiar  story 
of  precocity.  As  to  industrial  training,  few  of  the  street 
trades  are  suitable  for  a  permanent  occupation.  Neither  the 
newsboy  nor  the  bootblack  has  many  opportunities  to  form 
valuable  business  connections.  To  be  sure,  certain  individuals 
have  laid  the  foundations  of  a  successful  career  while  in  these 
very  callings;  but  while  such  instances  are  widely  adver- 
tised, little  is  said  of  the  far  larger  number  of  street  children 
who  have  gone  to  the  reform  school  or  the  penitentiary.^'^^ 

Fifth.  Fourteen  years  is  too  low  an  age  limit  for  most  of 
the  employments  fairly  within  the  scope  of  restrictive  legisla- 
tion. The  child  at  fourteen  is  neither  physiologically  nor 
morally  fitted  to  be  a  bread  winner.  His  body  is  too  imma- 
ture, his  character  too  plastic,  to  be  safely  subjected  to  the 
rude  buffeting  of  the  world.  The  period  of  education  ought 
to  extend  to  sixteen  at  the  lowest,  leaving  to  adults  the  busi- 
ness of  earning  a  livelihood. 

If  any  one  doubts  the  necessity  of  further  restricting  child 
labor  in  Iowa,  let  him  take  his  stand  some  morning  shortly 
before  seven  o'clock  at  the  corner  of  Fifth  and  Mulberry 
streets  in  the  city  of  Muscatine.  Here  for  half  an  hour  the 
streams  of  factory  hands  converge  from  four  sides  and  are 
swallowed  up  in  the  neighboring  button  mills.  Among  them 
come  scores  of  grammar  school  children,  carrying  their  dinner 
pails,  but  without  the  satchel  and  shining  morning  face.  For 
many  of  these  children  have  been  three  or  four  years  in  the 
button  factories  and  their  pale  faces,  slouching  gait,  and  under- 
developed bodies,  tell  all  too  sadly  the  story  of  deterioration. 
That  we  allow  these  boys  and  girls,  everyone  of  whom  ought 


CHILD  LABOR  LEGISLATION  147 

to  be  in  school,  to  toil  ten  mortal  hours  in  the  dust-and-germ- 
laden  air  of  a  finishing  or  grinding  room,  feeding  tireless  ma- 
chines, shortening  their  lives  and  impairing  the  vitality  of  a 
future  generation,  is  a  reproach  to  our  Commonwealth. 

CONCLUSION 

Iowa  already  has  in  the  system  of  juvenile  courts,  the  char- 
itable and  correctional  institutions,  and  the  compulsory  edu- 
cation and  child  labor  laws  a  respectable  body  of  legislation 
for  the  benefit  of  neglected,  dependent,  and  delinquent  chil- 
dren. Certainly  the  State  is  in  a  better  situation  as  re- 
gards child  problems  than  any  of  the  more  populous  Com- 
monwealths. But  the  people  of  Iowa  have  no  reason  to  feel 
satisfied  with  present  conditions.  There  is  still  very  much 
for  them  to  do  in  the  way  of  enforcing  school  attendance, 
stopping  the  numerous  gaps  in  the  present  child  labor  law, 
raising  the  age  limit  for  forbidden  employments,  and  extend- 
ing protection  to  children  now  legally  engaged  in  occupations 
no  less  objectionable.  The  friends  of  childhood — and  they 
are  the  friends  of  society — ^should  regard  existing  legislation 
as  only  a  beginning.  They  should  never  cease  their  efforts 
until  they  have  placed  Iowa  on  a  plane  with  the  most  ad- 
vanced States  in  her  public  provision  for  the  welfare  of  her 
children. 


VIII 
THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYEES'  LIABILITY 

INTRODUCTORY 

No  general  employer's  liability  law  has  ever  been  enacted 
in  Iowa.  Here  the  rules  of  the  Common  Law  prevail,  except 
in  so  far  as  these  have  been  modified  in  certain  respects  by 
statute.  Accordingly,  an  attempt  will  be  made  in  this  chapter 
to  state  the  leading  principles  of  the  Common  Law  of  em- 
ployer's liability  as  gathered  from  court  decisions  and  to  show 
how  far  these  doctrines  have  been  affected  by  legislation. 

The  first  employers'  liability  case  to  reach  the  Supreme 
Court  of  Iowa  was  that  of  Sullivan  vs.  The  Mssissippi  and 
Missouri  Eiver  Railroad  Company  (11  Iowa,  421),  which  came 
up  for  determination  in  1860.  The  earliest  cases  of  like  char- 
acter in  England  and  America  had  only  been  decided  about 
a  score  of  years  before.^^^  But  such  cases  had  multiplied 
very  rapidly  with  the  growth  of  the  modem  industrial  system, 
so  that  a  great  body  of  decisions  had  come  into  existence  be- 
fore 1860,  and  the  broad  doctrines  of  the  law  of  employer's 
liability  were  already  well  established.  Those  doctrines  were 
adopted  as  a  matter  of  course  by  the  Iowa  court,  and  the  sub- 
sequent development  of  the  law  in  this  State  has  very  naturally 
been  largely  influenced  by  its  course  elsewhere.  It  is  well 
known,  however,  that  there  is  great  diversity  of  views  upon 
this  branch  of  the  law  among  the  various  Anglo-American 
jurisdictions.  Iowa  has  her  own  line  of  decisions,  as  well  as 
her  own  liability  statutes,  and  some  rules  are  recognized  by 
her  courts  which  have  not  found  general  acceptance.  More- 
over, while  the  literature  dealing  with  employers'  liability  is 
very  voluminous,  the  law  of  any  one  State  has  seldom,  if  ever, 
been  systematically  worked  out.     For  these  reasons  the  sub- 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  149 

ject  is  here  treated  more  in  detail  than  would  otherwise  be 
necessary  or  allowable  in  a  work  of  this  character.  No  at- 
tempt has  been  made,  however,  to  collate  all  the  decisions,  and 
only  such  cases  are  cited  as  appear  to  be  most  apt  for  the 
purposes  of  illustration. 

The  right  of  a  servant  to  recover  from  his  master  for 
injuries  received  in  the  course  of  his  employment  rests  upon 
the  principle  of  negligence ;  the  master  owes  certain  duties  to 
his  employees,  and  for  any  breach  of  these  he  is  answerable  in 
civil  damages.  It  will  be  well,  therefore,  to  preface  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  law  of  employers'  liability  with  a  brief  sum- 
mary of  the  law  of  negligence,  of  which  the  former  is  a  par- 
ticular application. 

NEGLIGENCE  IN  GENEEAL 

Negligence  consists  in  doing,  or  omitting  to  do,  something 
which  a  person  of  ordinary  prudence  would  not  have  done  or 
omitted  under  like  circumstances. ^^^  It  is  not  every  reckless 
or  careless  act,  however,  which  constitutes  actionable  negli- 
gence. There  must  be  a  breach  of  some  duty,  imposed  by  law, 
owing  to  the  party  injured  from  him  who  was  guilty  of  the 
negligent  act.^^^  Again,  there  is  no  ground  of  action  unless 
the  negligent  act  complained  of  was  the  proximate  cause  of 
the  injury  for  which  recovery  is  sought  f^"^  that  is,  unless  the 
original  negligent  act  in  a  natural  and  continuous  sequence, 
unbroken  by  any  new  cause,  would  have  produced  the  injury, 
and  unless  without  it  the  injury  would  not  have  occurred.^^^ 
Lastly,  there  can  be  no  recovery  for  any  injury  to  which  the 
person  injured  in  any  degree  proximately  contributed  by  his 
own  want  of  ordinary  care.^^*  The  doctrine  of  comparative 
negligence  is  not  recognized  in  lowa,^^^  it  being  said  that  the 
law  will  not  undertake  to  determine  which  of  two  wrongdoers 
is  most  at  fault.^^^  But  the  contributory  negligence  of  the 
person  injured  will  not  defeat  his  recovery  unless  it  is  an 
efficient  and  proximate  cause  of  his  injury.^^'^  Nor  is  the 
contributory  negligence  of  the  injured  party  a  bar  to  recovery 
where  the  other  party  to  the  accident  becomes  aware  of  such 

11 


150         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

negligence  in  time  to  enable  him  to  avoid  the  injury  by  the 
exercise  of  ordinary  care^^^  (doctrine  of  last  clear  chance). 

In  an  action  to  recover  damages  for  an  injury  negligently 
caused,  the  plaintiff  has  the  burden  of  proof  to  show  not  only 
that  the  injury  was  the  proximate  result  of  the  defendant's 
negligence,  but  that  he  was  himself  exercising  due  care  at  the 
time  of  the  injury.^^^  It  is  not  always  necessary,  however, 
to  prove  the  absence  of  contributory  negligence  by  direct  and 
positive  testimony.^^^  The  fact  of  due  care  may  sometimes 
be  inferred  from  the  circumstances, ^^^  or  from  the  instinct  of 
self-preservation.^^^  Thus,  in  case  of  an  injury  causing  death, 
it  may  be  presumed,  until  the  contrary  appears,  that  the  de- 
ceased, prompted  by  his  natural  instinct,  exercised  such  care 
for  his  safety  as  was  required  under  the  circumstances.^^^ 
But  the  presumption  arising  from  the  instinct  of  self-preser- 
vation only  obtains  in  the  absence  of  direct  evidence  as  to 
the  care  exercised  by  the  person  injured  at  the  time  of  the 
injury,^^* 

Both  the  negligence  of  the  defendant  and  the  contributory 
negligence  of  the  plaintiff  are  ordinarily  mixed  questions  of 
law  and  fact.^^^  The  issues  of  fact  should  be  submitted  to  the 
jury,  imder  proper  instructions  from  the  court,  whenever  there 
is  conflicting  testimony^^^  or  whenever  reasonable  men  may 
honestly  differ  as  to  the  conclusions  to  be  drawn  from  the 
undisputed  facts  in  the  case.^^"^ 

BELATION    OF   MASTER   AND   SERVANT 

The  relation  of  master  and  servant,  or  of  employer  and 
employed,  arises  where  one  person  contracts  with  another 
for  his  services,  becoming  directly  responsible  to  him  for  his 
compensation  and  obtaining  authority  to  direct  the  perform- 
ance of  his  work.^^^  Where  no  such  contract  exists  there  is, 
of  course,  no  employer's  liability.^^^  The  contract  need  not 
be  express,  but  may  be  implied  from  acceptance  of  the  service, 
as  where  a  servant,  with  the  master's  knowledge,  employs  a 
substitute.^^^  On  the  other  hand,  a  servant  who  voluntarily 
undertakes  a  task  outside  the  scope  of  his  employment,  or 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  151 

who  goes  into  an  unauthorized  place  of  danger,  becomes  a 
mere  volunteer,  or  a  trespasser,  to  whom  the  master  owes 
no  duty  of  protection  until  his  peril  is  discovered.^^^  But  a 
servant  is  within  the  scope  of  his  employment  in  engaging 
in  work  which  he  customarily  performs  with  the  knowledge, 
actual  or  constructive,  of  the  master  or  his  representative, 
though  without  express  authorization.^^^  An  independent  con- 
tractor, that  is,  one  who  undertakes  to  do  a  piece  of  work 
according  to  his  own  methods,  and  without  being  subject  to  the 
control  of  his  employer,  except  as  to  the  results  of  his  work,^^^ 
is  not  a  servant,  and  the  master  is  not  liable  for  his  negli- 
gence.^^* 

THE  DUTIES  OF  EMPLOYEES 
DEGREE   OF    CARE 

The  master  is  not  an  insurer  of  his  employees,^^^  but  he  is 
bound  to  use  reasonable  care  for  their  safety  while  they  are 
engaged  at  their  work.^''®  An  employer  cannot  be  held  to  the 
exercise  of  anything  more  than  ordinary  care  on  behalf  of 
his  employees,^^'^  that  is,  such  care  as  a  person  of  average 
prudence  would  exercise  under  the  like  or  similar  circum- 
stances.^^^  But  ordinary  care  is  itself  no  fixed  and  unalter- 
able standard,^^^  but  is  to  be  measured  by  the  character  of  the 
business  and  the  risks  attending  its  prosecution.^*^  Thus  in 
handling  electricity,  or  in  exposing  men  to  its  currents,  rea- 
sonable care  is  great  care.^*^  So,  too,  it  is  negligence  to  run 
a  railway  train  at  high  speed  where  the  road-bed  has  been 
softened  by  recent  rains,  although  such  speed  would  not  be 
dangerous  under  normal  conditions.^*^ 

master's   knowledge   of   DANGEROUS   CONDITION 

An  employer  is  not  bound  to  foresee  and  guard  against 
every  possible  contingency,  but  only  against  such  as  are  likely 
to  occur.^*^  Unless  he  has  knowledge,  actual  or  constructive, 
of  the  existence  of  a  dangerous  condition  he  is  not  liable  for 
an  injury  arising  therefrom.^**  But  knowledge  will  be  pre- 
sumed whenever  the  dangerous  condition  has  existed  for  such 


152         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

a  length  of  time  that  the  employer,  in  the  exercise  of  ordi- 
nary care,  could  have  discovered  it.^*^ 

GENERAL  USAGE  AS  A  STANDARD  OF  CARE 

The  general  usage  of  employers  in  the  same  line  of  busi- 
ness, and  in  the  same  vicinity,  may  be  shown  as  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  ordinary  care.^^®  Common  usage,  however,  is 
not  in  Iowa  conclusive  proof  of  care  and  is  of  no  avail  as  a 
defense  where  the  custom  is  in  itself  negligent.^*"^ 

STATUTORY  REQUIREMENTS  AS  A  STANDARD  OF  CARE 

The  violation  of  an  express  statutory  requirement  is  negli- 
gence per  56;^*^  any  injury  caused  by  such  violation  is  the 
subject  of  an  action,  and  it  is  sufficient  to  allege  the  violation 
of  the  law  as  the  basis  of  the  right  to  recover  and  as  con- 
stituting the  negligence  complained  of.^*^  Thus  it  is  negli- 
gence to  operate  railway  cars  not  equipped  in  accordance  with 
the  automatic  coupler  law,^^^  to  leave  dangerous  machinery 
unguarded  in  violation  of  the  factory  acts,^^^  to  supply  a  less 
amount  of  air  in  a  coal  mine  than  is  required  by  law,^^^  or  to 
operate  trains  at  an  illegal  rate  of  speed.^^^  Violation  of  law 
does  not,  however,  give  an  absolute  right  of  recovery  but  only 
establishes  the  fact  of  negligence.^^* 

SPECIFIC  DUTIES  OF  THE  MASTER 

The  master's  duty  not  to  expose  his  employees  to  unneces^ 
sary  dangers  requires  him  to  provide  reasonably  safe  instru- 
mentalities for  carrying  on  his  business,  and  to  see  that  these 
are  used  in  a  reasonably  safe  manner.  Under  the  first  of 
these  heads  belong  the  duties  to  furnish  a  safe  place  to  work, 
to  provide  safe  and  suitable  tools  and  appliances,  and  to  hire 
competent  servants.  The  second  general  category  of  the  mas- 
ter's duties  includes  his  obligations  to  conduct  his  business 
upon  a  safe  system,  to  warn  servants  of  dangers  not  known 
to  them,  and  to  instruct  them  where  necessary  as  to  the  proper 
performance  of  their  duties. 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY  153 

DUTY  TO  PROVIDE  SAFE  PLACE  TO  WORK. 

It  is  the  duty  of  an  employer  to  use  reasonable  care  to 
provide  his  employees  a  safe  place  to  work.^^^  The  master's 
duty  is  sometimes  stated  more  broadly,  as  when  it  is  said  that 
he  must  furnish  a  "safe  place "^^^  or  "a  reasonably  safe 
place  ".^^'^  But  these  expressions  mean  no  more  than  that  the 
employer  is  bound  to  use  ordinary  care  to  provide  such  a 
place,  A  place  is  "safe"  within  the  meaning  of  the  law  when 
it  has  been  furnished  and  equipped  with  reasonable  care.  The 
law  only  requires  that  those  safeguards  and  precautions  which 
ordinary  experience,  prudence,  and  foresight  suggest  shall  be 
taken  to  prevent  injury  to  the  employee  while  he  is  himself 
exercising  reasonable  care  in  the  service  which  he  undertakes 
to  perform.^^^ 

The  obligation  of  the  employer  to  furnish  a  safe  place  to 
work  is  a  continuing  one;^^^  it  is  his  duty  not  only  to  make 
the  working  place  reasonably  safe  to  begin  with,  but  to  exer- 
cise ordinary  care  in  so  keeping  it.^^^  Ordinary  care  involves 
the  duty  of  inspection  where  the  place  of  employment  is  likely 
to  become  unsafe  by  the  lapse  of  time.^^^  But  where  the 
place  is  rendered  unsafe  by  the  progress  of  the  work,  the 
master  is  relieved  from  liability  as  to  servants  engaged  in 
such  work.^^2  Nor  does  the  doctrine  that  the  master  must 
provide  a  safe  place  to  work  apply  where  the  servant  seeking 
recovery  is  himself  responsible  for  the  creation  and  care  of 
the  place  where  he  works,  as  in  the  case  of  a  coal  miner's 
*'room".^^^ 

DUTY   TO   PROVIDE   SAFE   MACHINERY   AND   APPLIANCES 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  master  to  make  reasonable  efforts  to 
furnish  his  servants  with  suitable  and  safe  appliances  for  the 
performance  of  the  duties  assigned  to  them.^^*  He  does  not 
warrant  the  safety  of  tools  and  machinery  any  more  than  of 
the  place  to  work;^^^  nor  is  he  bound  to  furnish  appliances 
such  that  accidents  will  be  impossible^^^ — it  is  sufficient  if  he 
provides  those  which  in  the  exercise  of  due  care  can  be  used 
with  reasonable  safety.^^"^ 


154         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

An  employer  is  not  bound  to  use  the  best  appliances  which 
can  be  obtained,  nor  is  he  bound  to  adopt  any  new  device  until 
its  utility  has  been  sufficiently  tested  and  it  has  been  shown 
to  be  as  a  whole  better  than  the  appliance  already  in  use  for 
the  same  purpose.^^^  Thus,  it  has  been  held  that  in  the  ab- 
sence of  statutory  requirement  a  railway  company  is  not 
necessarily  guilty  of  negligence  in  failing  to  equip  its  loco- 
motive engines  with  automatic  couplers.^^^  So,  too,  an  em- 
ployer is  not  negligent  in  failing  to  guard  certain  machinery 
when  it  is  not  usual  to  guard  similar  machinery.^'^*^  But 
where  a  safety  appliance  is  in  common  use  a  jury  may  find 
that  the  master  is  wanting  in  ordinary  care  in  not  adopting 
it  or  some  other  appliance  equally  safe.^"^^ 

DUTY  OF  INSPECTION 

We  have  already  seen  that  where  a  master  furnishes  his 
servant  a  place  to  work  he  is  bound  to  use  reasonable  care  to 
keep  it  in  safe  repair.  The  same  rule  holds  of  appliances  fur- 
nished for  the  servant's  use.^"^^  As  regards  new  machinery, 
the  employer  is  presumed  to  have  notice  of  any  defects  which 
existed  at  the  time  when  it  was  put  in  use.^'^^  Moreover,  he 
is  bound  to  know  that  appliances  originally  safe  are  liable  to 
get  out  of  order  while  in  use,  and  he  is  chargeable  with  knowl- 
edge of  any  defects  which  he  could  have  discovered  by  ordi- 
nary care  and  watchfulness.^'^*  ''It  will  not  do  to  say  that, 
having  furnished  suitable  and  proper  machinery  and  appli- 
ances, the  [railway]  corporation  can  thereafter  remain  pas- 
sive. The  duty  of  inspection  is  affirmative,  and  must  be  con- 
tinuously fulfilled,  and  positively  performed.  "^'^^  Mere  fre- 
quency of  inspection  is  not  sufficient ;  there  must  also  be  proper 
care  in  the  performance  of  the  duty.^'^®  Inspection  by  a  public 
authority  does  not  relieve  the  master  of  his  own  duty  in  dis- 
covering and  repairing  defects,  and  the  failure  of  an  official 
inspector  to  discover  a  defect  in  a  particular  appliance  which 
he  is  not  shown  to  have  inspected,  is  not  proof  of  the  absence 
of  such  defect.^"^' 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY  155 

DUTY   TO   HIRE   COMPETENT   SERVANTS 

The  master  must  furnish  a  sufficient  number  of  competent 
servants  for  carrying  on  his  business  with  reasonable  safety.^"^^ 
It  is  his  duty  to  exercise  care  in  the  selection  of  employees,^"^^ 
and  he  is  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  the  incompetence  of  a 
servant  when  he  should  in  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  have 
known  of  such  incompetence.^^^  The  employer's  knowledge  of 
the  servant's  incompetence  may  be  inferred  from  the  prior 
conduct  of  the  latter,  but  a  single  act  of  casual  neglect  on  the 
part  of  the  employee  does  not  prove  him  incompetent,^^-*^  nor 
does  a  servant's  carelessness  at  the  time  the  injury  com- 
plained of  was  received  show  want  of  due  care  in  employing 
him.^^^ 

DUTY   TO   CONDUCT   BUSINESS   UPON   SAFE   SYSTEM 

The  employer's  duty  to  conduct  his  business  upon  a  rea- 
sonably safe  system  includes  the  duty  of  providing  sufficient 
and  necessary  rules  for  the  guidance  of  employees.^^^ 

DUTY    TO    WARN    AND    INSTRUCT 

The  master  is  required  to  instruct  an  employee  in  the  per- 
formance of  a  service  attended  with  a  danger  of  injury  which 
is  not  known  to  or  appreciated  by  the  employee,^^*  and  to  warn 
him  of  dangers  which  are,  or  should  be,  in  the  exercise  of 
reasonable  care  known  to  the  master  but  which  the  servant 
does  not  know  of  or  does  not  appreciate.^^^  But  the  master  is 
not  bound  to  instruct  an  experienced  employee,  nor  to  point 
out  dangers  known  to  the  employee,^^^  or  which  are  so  open 
and  obvious  that  by  the  exercise  of  ordinary  care  the  servant 
could  discover  them.^*^" 

THE  employer's  DEFENSES 

It  follows  from  the  very  definition  of  employers'  liability 
that,  unless  the  master  is  remiss  in  the  performance  of  some 
of  the  duties  just  discussed,  the  servant  will  have  no  ground 
of  action  against  him.  For  without  breach  of  duty  there  is 
no  negligence,  and  without  negligence  there  is  no  liability. 
But  even  where  an  injury  is  proximately  caused  by  the  negli- 


156         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

gence  of  the  master  the  latter  may  still  be  able  to  escape  lia- 
bility by  setting  up  one  or  more  of  the  defenses  open  to  him. 
These  defenses  as  here  treated  are  three  in  number:  con- 
tributory negligence,  assumption  of  risk,  and  the  fellow  sei-v- 
ant  rule.  Logically,  of  course,  the  third  is  not  a  separate 
defense  at  all,  but  a  phase  of  the  second.  For  the  negligence 
of  co-employees  is  one  of  the  risks  assumed  by  the  servant 
when  he  enters  his  master's  employ.  But  the  precise  rela- 
tionship of  the  two  defenses  is  not  very  significant  and  is 
seldom  adverted  to  by  the  courts,  while  the  fellow  servant 
rule  is  so  important  in  itself  and  is  subject  to  so  many  quali- 
fications that  a  separate  treatment  is  convenient  if  not  neces- 
sary. Logically,  again,  there  is  another  defense  expressed  by 
the  maxim.  Volenti  non  fit  injuria.  But  the  distinction  between 
this  maxim  and  the  doctrine  of  assumption  of  risk  has  not  been 
clearly  drawn  by  the  Iowa  courts.  Indeed,  it  would  hardly  be 
too  much  to  say  that  the  maxim  is  not  recognized  in  this 
State  as  a  separate  defense  in  employer's  liability  cases.  Cer- 
tainly it  calls  for  no  separate  consideration  here. 

CONTRIBUTORY  NEGLIGENCE 

In  strictness,  contributory  negligence  is  not  a  defense. 
Its  absence  is  a  matter  to  be  pleaded  and  proven  to  justify 
a  recovery.^^**  The  defendant,  however,  will  usually  seek  to 
show  contributory  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  plaintiff  by 
way  of  rebuttal.  The  plea  may,  therefore,  be  treated  as  a 
defense,  though  the  burden  of  proof  rests  upon  the  plaintiff 
to  show  his  freedom  from  contributory  negligence  and  not 
upon  the  defendant  to  show  the  fact  of  such  negligence. 

As  applied  to  the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  the  doc- 
trine of  contributory  negligence  presents  two  aspects.  First, 
a  servant  may  be  guilty  of  contributory  negligence  so  as  to 
preclude  recovery  in  continuing  to  work  under  conditions 
which  he  knows,  or  ought  to  know,  to  be  abnormally  danger- 
ous. Second,  a  servant  cannot  recover  for  an  injury  to  which 
his  own  want  of  due  care  at  the  time  contributed  as  an  efficient 
cause.    In  Iowa,  however,  the  conception  of  contributory  neg- 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  157 

ligence  in  continuing  at  work  is  merged  with  that  of  con- 
tractual assumption  of  risk.^^^  It  only  remains,  therefore,  to 
discuss  the  question  of  the  servant's  negligence  at  the  time 
of  the  injury. 

A  master  is  entitled,  in  the  conduct  of  his  business,  to  aci 
upon  the  presumption  that  his  employees  will  themselves  use 
ordinary  care  in  the  discharge  of  their  respective  duties.^^^ 
A  servant,  on  the  other  hand,  cannot  be  held  to  any  higher 
degree  of  care  than  that  defined  as  reasonable  or  ordinary,^^^ 
though  what  conduct  is  reasonable  will,  of  course,  depend  upon 
the  particular  circumstances  surrounding  each  case.^^^ 

Contributory  negligence  is,  of  course,  not  predicable  un- 
less the  employee  was,  or  ought  to  have  been  aware  of  the 
conditions  which  caused  his  injury,^^^  and  appreciated  the 
dangers  created  by  those  conditions.^^*  Knowledge  of  a  dan- 
gerous condition  will  be  imputed  to  an  employee  when  he 
could  have  discovered  the  same  by  the  use  of  ordinary  care.^^^ 
Whether  or  not  he  can  be  held  to  have  appreciated  the  danger 
thereby  occasioned  may  depend  upon  the  age  and  experience 
of  the  employee,^®^  his  opportunities  for  observation,^^'^  and 
other  circumstances  existing  at  the  time  of  the  injury.^^^ 

It  has  been  seen  that  contributory  negligence  is  not  to  be 
predicated  as  a  matter  of  law  unless  it  is  a  necessary  inference 
from  undisputed  facts.  Some  typical  cases  which  have  been 
held  to  present  such  a  necessary  inference  are  discussed  below. 

Violation  of  law  is  negligence  per  se/^^  and  where  such 
violation  by  the  party  injured  contributed  to  the  injury  com- 
plained of,  he  cannot  recover.  But  if  the  violation  of  law 
was  a  mere  condition,  and  not  a  proximate  cause  of  the  injury, 
it  will  not  defeat  recovery.^*^*^ 

The  needless  violation  of  a  known  rule  of  the  employer 
intended  for  the  safety  of  his  employees  is  contributory  negli- 
gence, if  it  is  an  efficient  cause  of  the  inquiry.^^^  Of  course, 
a  breach  of  the  rules  will  not  defeat  recovery  where  it  was 
not  the  proximate  cause  of  the  injury,^^^  nor  where  the  breach 
was  justified  by  the  circumstances.®^^    Nor  can  an  employer 


158         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

escape  responsibility  by  showing  the  violation  of  a  rule  which 
is  habitually  disregarded  with  his  apparent  acquiescence.®^* 

It  is  not  necessarily  negligent  to  adopt  the  more  dangerous 
of  two  available  courses  of  action.  The  question  is  ordinarily 
one  of  fact,  to  be  determined  according  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  the  reasons  for  doing  what  was  done,  and  the  care 
used  to  avoid  danger.®^^  But  to  choose  a  reckless  or  need- 
lessly dangerous  method  of  accomplishing  an  object  is  negli- 
gence as  a  matter  of  law.®^®  Thus,  a  brakeman  is  not  always 
guilty  of  contributory  negligence,  as  a  matter  of  law,  in  going 
between  cars  while  in  motion  to  couple  or  to  uncouple  them.®^"^ 
Nor  is  a  servant  necessarily  negligent  in  failing  to  use  a  safety 
appliance  provided  by  the  employer,®^^  though  it  is  negligent 
to  ignore  such  an  appliance  where  it  can  reasonably  be  used.®^^ 

Other  illustrations  of  negligent  conduct  are:  failure  to 
use  appropriate  precautions  in  a  dangerous  situation  ;®^^  ex- 
posure to  dangers  created  by  permanent  conditions  or  struct- 
ures which  the  employee  is  bound  to  know  of  ;®^^  going  into 
or  remaining  in  an  unauthorized  and  dangerous  position  ;®^^ 
creating  or  assisting  to  create  the  conditions  from  which  the 
injury  results  ;®^^  or  going  into  a  dangerous  place  without 
notifying  persons  from  whose  acts  danger  may  reasonably  be 
anticipated.®^*  The  variety  of  possible  negligent  acts  is,  of 
course,  limitless.  The  concrete  instances  above  enumerated 
are  perhaps  sufficient  for  purposes  of  illustration. 

The  inference  arising  from  a  particular  course  of  conduct 
may  be  negatived  by  a  variety  of  circumstances.  Among  these 
are:  the  youth  or  inexperience  of  the  employee ;®^^  the  need 
of  performing  a  duty  in  haste  ;®^®  conditions  of  imminent  peril 
or  necessity  under  which  an  act  is  performed  :®^'^  or  the  en- 
grossment of  the  employee's  attention  by  the  duties  in  which 
he  is  engaged.®^^  The  fact  that  a  particular  act  is  usual  or 
customary  tends  to  rebut  a  presumption  of  negligence,®^^  un- 
less the  custom  in  itself  is  negligent.®^^  A  servant  is  ordinar- 
ily entitled,  until  the  contrary  appears,  to  rely  upon  the  pre- 
sumption that  his  co-employees  will  use  reasonable  care  in 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  159 

the  performance  of  their  several  duties,  and  he  will  not  be 
guilty  of  negligence  in  omitting  precautions  which  he  might 
have  used  but  for  such  presumption.^^^ 

ASSUMPTION  OF  RISKS 

We  have  seen  that  the  doctrine  of  contributory  negligence 
applies  in  all  cases  in  which  damages  are  sought  for  injuries 
due  to  the  negligence  of  another.  The  doctrine  of  the  assump-* 
tion  of  risk  is  restricted  to  suits  of  servants  against  their 
masters;  but  within  that  sphere  it  is  a  far-reaching  bar  to 
recovery.  That  doctrine  is  that  when  a  servant  enters  the 
employment  of  a  master,  he  takes  upon  himself  the  ordinary 
risks  incident  to  the  employment  in  which  he  is  engaged,  and 
also  such  other  risks  as  he  may  be  held  to  know  of  and  appre- 
ciate.^^^  It  has  been  asserted  that  the  assumption  of  risk  is 
implied  by  law  from  the  relationship  of  master  and  servant.^^^ 
More  usually,  however,  it  is  regarded  as  an  implied  term  of 
the  contract  of  employment.^^^ 

The  risks  assumed  by  servants  are  of  two  kinds:  those 
incident  to  the  business  as  it  is  usually  carried  on ;  and  those 
primarily  due  to  the  negligence  of  the  master.  The  formei: 
are  commonly  spoken  of  as  ordinary  and  the  latter  as  ex- 
traordinary risks.  Assumption  by  the  servant  of  these  two 
classes  of  risks  is  placed  upon  somewhat  different  grounds, 
and  is  governed  by  different  rules  of  proof ;  though  such  as- 
sumption, when  once  established,  is  equally  fatal  to  recovery 
in  either  case.  We  shall  first  consider  the  assumption  of  ordi- 
nary risks. 

ORDINARY  BISKS 

When  a  servant  enters  the  employment  of  a  master  he 
takes  upon  himself  such  danger  and  exposure  to  injury  as  is 
naturally  incident  to  or  connected  with  the  service  in  which 
he  engages  after  the  master  has  fulfilled  his  duty  to  take  rea- 
sonable care  for  the  safety  of  his  employees.^^^  Risks  thus 
arising  are  not  due  to  the  employer's  negligence;  hence  an 
injury  resulting  therefrom  affords  no  cause  of  action.     The 


160         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

assumption  of  these  risks  inheres  in  the  contract  of  employ- 
ment, or  in  the  relation  of  master  and  servant,  and  need  not 
be  pleaded  as  a  defense.^^^ 

Knowledge  and  appreciation  of  danger  are  essential  ele- 
ments in  the  assumption  of  risk.^^^  But  as  respects  the  ordi- 
nary risks  of  an  employment,  knowledge  and  appreciation  may 
be  presumed  from  the  fact  of  undertaking  the  service.  For 
one  who  enters  a  certain  emplojnnent  impliedly  represents 
that  he  has  the  experience  to  perform  properly  the  duties  of 
his  position  and  that  he  knows  the  obvious  dangers  attending 
the  employment  in  which  he  engages.^^^  The  age  and  ex- 
perience of  an  employee  are,  however,  to  be  considered  in  de- 
termining whether  he  comprehended  and  so  assumed  a  par- 
ticular risk.®^^ 

Since  the  risks  ordinarily  incident  to  an  employment  are 
usually  held  to  be  assumed  by  the  servant  as  a  matter  of  law, 
and  as  to  them  the  master  is  relieved  of  all  responsibility,  the 
determination  of  what  risks  are  to  be  deemed  ordinary  be- 
comes a  matter  of  great  importance.  The  question  may  be 
approached  from  either  of  two  directions:  the  care  required 
of  the  master,  and  the  knowledge  imputed  to  the  servant.  On 
the  one  hand,  ordinary  risks  are  defined  as  those  which  rea- 
sonable care  on  the  part  of  the  employer  cannot  guard 
against.^^*^  On  the  other  hand,  the  servant  is  said  to  assume 
the  risks  which  a  reasonably  prudent  and  careful  man  would 
expect  to  encounter  in  the  course  of  his  employment.^^^  But, 
in  either  view,  the  servant  assumes  only  those  risks  which  are 
incident  to  the  business  when  conducted  in  a  reasonably  pru- 
dent and  careful  manner,^^^  unless  he  has  knowledge,  actual 
or  implied,  that  it  is  not  so  conducted.^^^ 

The  ordinary  risks  of  an  employment  always  include  those 
which  are  inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  business.^^*  One  who 
engages  in  an  extra-hazardous  employment  thus  takes  upon 
himself  the  ordinary  perils  incident  thereto.^^^ 

Every  person  in  undertaking  to  work  agrees  to  labor  in 
the  situation  and  with  the  tools  provided,  in  so  far  as  the  con- 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  161 

dition  of  these  is  apparent  or  may  be  ascertained  by  the  ex- 
ercise of  ordinary  diligence.^^^  All  open  and  obvious  dangers 
are,  accordingly,  to  be  considered  as  risks  incident  to  the 
employment,^^^  whether  such  dangers  result  from  the  char- 
acter of  the  instrumentalities  used,®^*  or  from  the  conditions, 
whether  permanent  ^^^  or  temporary,^**^  under  which  the  busi- 
ness is  openly  conducted. 

The  rule  governing  the  assumption  of  risk  is  the  same  in 
works  of  construction  and  repair  as  in  any  other  employment, 
though  the  risks  assumed  may  be  greater  because  of  the 
hazardous  character  of  such  work.^^^  Thus,  one  employed 
to  make  a  dangerous  place  safe  cannot  recover  for  injuries 
received  by  reason  of  the  very  danger  which  he  undertakes 
to  remove,  since  that  is  a  danger  incident  to  his  employment.^*^ 
So,  too,  a  servant  assumes  any  risk  of  injury  created  by  the 
progress  of  the  work  in  which  he  is  engaged.^*^  If,  for  ex- 
ample, he  is  employed  to  tear  down  an  old  building,^**  the  risk 
of  injury  from  the  falling  of  the  overhanging  material  is  his 
own.  But  in  all  of  these  cases  the  servant  assumes  only  those 
risks  which  are  naturally  incident  to  the  employment,  while 
the  master's  duty  not  to  expose  him  to  any  injury  which  may 
reasonably  be  anticipated  and  guarded  against  remains  unim- 
paired.^*"^ 

EXTRAORDINARY  RISKS 

''A  servant  is  prima  facie  not  chargeable  with  an  assump- 
tion of  extraordinary  risks — risks,  that  is  to  say,  which  may 
be  obviated  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care  on  the  master's 
part."^*^  But  if  an  extraordinary  risk  is  actually  or  con- 
structively known  to  and  comprehended  by  the  employee,  and 
he  notwithstanding  elects  to  remain  in  the  service,  he  assumes 
the  risk  and  waives  the  right  to  recover  for  injuries  caused 
thereby.^'^^  The  servant's  inability  to  recover  is  placed  upon 
the  ground  of  the  maxim,  Volenti  non  fit  injuria;^^^  having 
voluntarily  incurred  the  danger,  he  cannot  complain  of  the 
injury.^^^  The  assumption  of  an  extraordinary  risk  is,  then, 
to  be  inferred  not  from  the  contract  of  employment,  but  from 


162         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

voluntarj^  continuance  in  the  service  after  the  risk  is  known 
and  appreciated.^^^ 

Assumption  of  risks  arising  from  negligence  of  the  master 
is  an  affirmative  defense,  which  must  be  pleaded  in  answer  and 
sustained  by  a  preponderance  of  the  evidence.^^^  The  ques- 
tion whether  or  not  a  particular  risk  has  been  assumed  is 
ordinarily  for  the  jury.^^* 

A  risk  not  ordinarily  incident  to  the  employment  in  which 
he  is  engaged  is  not  assumed  by  an  employee  unless  he  had 
notice  of  its  existence.^^^  Actual  knowledge,  however,  need 
not  be  shown,  since  every  person  is  held  to  know  what  in  the 
exercise  of  ordinary  care  he  ought  to  know.^^^  It  is  the  duty 
of  an  employee  to  use  reasonable  care  and  prudence  to  dis- 
cover the  open  and  obvious  dangers  around  him,^^'^  and  he  is 
chargeable  with  knowledge  of  any  danger  which  it  would  have 
been  possible  to  discover  by  the  exercise  of  such  care  as  per- 
sons of  ordinary  intelligence  may  be  expected  to  take  for  their 
own  saf  tey.®^®  However  he  is  not  required  to  inspect  or  search 
for  obscure  dangers  or  defects  in  his  place  of  work,  or  in  the 
machinery  or  appliances  which  are  furnished  to  him.*''^'' 

Mere  knowledge  of  a  dangerous  condition  will  not  charge 
an  employee  with  assumption  of  risk  therefrom.^^^  It  must 
further  appear  that  he  appreciated,  as  a  reasonably  pru- 
dent man  should  appreciate,  the  danger  to  himself  resulting 
from  the  abnormal  condition.^^^ 

"Wliether  an  emj^loyee  is  chargeable  with  knowledge  and 
appreciation  of  a  particular  risk  will  depend  upon  various 
circumstances :  the  employee 's  age  and  experience  f^^  his  op- 
portunities for  acquaintance  with  his  surroundings  ;^^^  the 
means  of  information  at  his  command  ;^^*  and  the  obviousness 
of  the  danger  to  which  he  is  exposed. 

A  minor  servant  is  not,  as  a  matter  of  law,  incapable  of 
assenting  to  and  assuming  the  risk  of  a  hazard  created  by 
the  negligence  of  his  master.^^^  But  the  age  and  experience 
of  the  servant  are  always  important  considerations  in  deter- 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  163 

mining  whether  he  knows  or  ought  to  know  and  appreciate 
the  peril  to  which  he  is  exposed.^^^ 

An  employee  is  chargeable  with  knowledge  and  apprecia- 
tion of  all  dangers  which  are  open  and  obvious,^®'^  that  is  to 
say,  discoverable  by  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care.^^^  A 
bridge  above  a  railway  track  too  low  to  be  cleared  by  a  brake- 
man  standing  on  the  top  of  a  box  car,^^^  a  projecting  girder 
in  an  elevator  shaft,^'^^  or  a  coal  shute  in  close  proximity  to 
a  railroad  track  ^'^^  presents  dangers  which  must  be  patent  to 
any  person  of  ordinary  intelligence.  But  where  the  risk  is  not 
apparent  it  is  not  assumed  unless  there  are  circumstances 
showing  that  it  should  have  been  understood  and  appre- 
ciated.^^^ 

Assumption  of  risk  relieves  the  master  of  all  liability  un- 
der the  common  law.  Recovery  is  thus  barred  for  failure  to 
provide  a  safe  place  to  work®"^^  or  safe  machinery  and  appli- 
ances,^"^* to  hire  competent  servants,^"^^  or  to  conduct  the  busi- 
ness on  a  safe  system.^'^*^ 

The  defense  of  assumption  of  risk  is  equally  available 
against  a  violation  of  statutory  law,  at  least  as  respects  stat- 
utes not  enacted  i:)rimarily  for  the  protection  of  employees.^^"^ 
But  under  the  factory  acts  forbidding  the  employment  of 
children  in  the  operation  of  machinery  it  has  been  held  that 
children  within  the  prohibited  age  limit  are  presumptively 
incapable  of  appreciating  the  danger  attendant  upon  such  em- 
ployment.^^^  "Public  policy",  it  was  said,  "would  seem  to 
demand  that  the  statute  which  undertakes  to  protect  children 
against  the  hazard  to  which  the  recklessness  and  inexperience 
of  childhood  expose  them  shall  not  be  defeated  of  its  purpose 
by  pleading  that  same  childish  recklessness  or  ignorance  as  a 
reason  for  exempting  an  employer  from  responsibility  for  his 
wrong."  The  defense  of  assumption  of  risk  is  not,  however, 
abrogated  by  these  decisions.  It  still  remains  open  for  the 
employer  to  show  affirmatively  that  the  servant,  notwithstand- 
ing his  youth,  possesses  sufficient  knowledge  and  experience 
to  appreciate  the  risk  to  which  he  is  exposed.^"^^ 


164         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Knowledge  and  appreciation  of  a  danger  created  by  the 
master's  negligence  does  not  in  every  case  charge  an  employee 
with  assumption  of  the  risk,  nor  with  contributory  negligence 
in  continuing  at  work.  But  where  it  appears  that  the  servant 
knew  and  appreciated  the  danger  which  caused  his  injury,  it 
is  incumbent  upon  him  to  show  that  he  was  in  some  manner 
justified  in  exposing  liimself  thereto.^^^  Such  justification 
may  arise  from  several  circumstances. 

In  the  first  place,  an  employee  does  not  assume  a  risk 
of  which  he  only  becomes  aware  at  the  moment  of  his  injury. 
No  one  is  properly  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  a  peril 
unless  in  the  exercise  of  reasonable  care  he  might  have  become 
aware  of  it  sufiBciently  in  advance  to  enable  him  to  protect 
himself  therefrom.^^'^  Moreover,  it  would  be  unreasonable  to 
require  an  employee  to  abandon  his  master's  service  the  in- 
stant he  discovers  a  dangerous  condition.  He  may  wait  a 
reasonable  time  to  see  whether,  upon  complaint,  the  danger 
will  be  removed;  and  during  such  time  he  is  not  chargeable 
with  assumption  of  risk.^^^ 

It  has  been  said,  in  at  least  one  case,  that  a  servant  does 
not  assume  the  risk  of  any  defects  in  the  things  about  which 
he  is  employed  unless,  knowing  the  defects,  he  remains  in  the 
employment  of  his  master  without  objection  or  protest  against 
their  continuance.^^^  Protest  is  here  apparently  treated  as 
evidence  of  non-consent,  and  so  as  inconsistent  with  the  theory 
of  voluntary  assumption  of  risk.  But  so  merciful  a  view,  if 
ever  really  entertained,  has  not  been  adopted.  It  is  now  set- 
tled that  complaint  of  a  defect,  without  a  promise  of  remedy, 
will  not  relieve  the  employee  of  assumption  of  the  risk  if  he 
continues  in  the  service.^^* 

A  different  rule  obtains  where  the  employee  continues  at 
work  in  reliance  upon  the  master's  assurance  that  a  dangerous 
condition  will  be  remedied.  The  employee's  assumption  of  the 
risk  arising  from  the  condition  promised  to  be  remedied  is 
suspended,  eo  instante,  by  such  a  promise,  and  his  right  of 
recovery  remains  intact  so  long  as  he  may  reasonably  expect 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  165 

the  promise  to  be  fulfilled.^^^  The  master's  promise  need  not 
be  express :  it  is  sufficient  if  the  servant  has  a  right  to  believe 
that  the  defect  will  be  remedied.^^^  Nor  need  the  promise  be 
made  by  the  master  himself,  since  he  is  bomid  by  the  act  of 
one  having  authority  in  such  matters.®^'^ 

A  servant  may  be  justified  by  express  command  of  the 
master  or  his  representative  in  doing  an  act  from  which  dan- 
ger may  reasonably  be  apprehended.^^^  This  rule  is  especially 
applicable  to  employments  like  railroading  in  which  due  sub- 
ordination and  prompt  obedience  to  orders  are  indispensable 
to  the  safety  of  life  and  property.  But  in  order  to  justify  a 
particular  act  the  order  must  be  specific,^^^  while  even  an  ex- 
press command  will  not  excuse  an  employee  in  incurring  an 
unnecessary  danger  which  is  apparent  to  him.^^^ 

A  principle  somewhat  analogous  to  that  just  stated  is, 
that  a  servant  is  entitled  to  place  some  reliance  upon  the 
assurance  of  his  superior,  who  is  presumably  better  informed 
than  himself,  that  an  appliance  is  safe  or  that  an  act  may, 
be  safely  done.^^^  Either  an  express  command  or  an  assur- 
ance of  safety  tends  to  negative  both  contributory  negligence 
and  assumption  of  risk,  since  the  one  implies  a  want  of  volun- 
tary action  and  the  other  shows  excusable  ignorance  of  the 
danger  to  be  incurred. 

We  have  seen  that  an  act  which  would  otherwise  be  con- 
tributory negligence  may  be  excusable  where  the  employee's 
attention  is  necessarily  engrossed  by  the  performance  of  duty 
so  that  a  known  danger  is  absent  from  his  mind,  or  where 
an  emergency  exists  requiring  prompt  action.  It  is  clear, 
however,  that  circumstances  such  as  these  cannot,  in  a  logical 
point  of  view,  be  held  to  negative  a  contractual  assumption 
of  risk.  For  when  a  risk  has  been  assumed,  the  master's 
negligence  with  respect  thereto  is  waived,  and  this  waiver 
can  not  be  affected  by  the  particular  situation  in  which  the 
employee  may  be  placed,  or  the  rapidity  and  promptness  with 
which  he  may  be  required  to  act  at  the  time  of  the  accident.^^^ 
Such  is  undoubtedly  the  general  rule  as  recognized  in  this 

12 


166         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

and  other  States.^*^^  A  more  merciful  doctrine  appears  to  be 
announced  in  Strong  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railroad  Company 
(94  Iowa,  380).  In  that  case  a  brakeman  adopted  a  danger- 
ous but  speedy  mode  of  making  a  coupling  in  order  to  clear 
the  main  track  for  a  passenger  train  which  was  almost  due. 
It  was  held  that  under  the  circumstances  he  did  not  waive 
his  right  of  action.  But  since  the  brakeman 's  right  to  re- 
cover in  this  case  was  based  in  part  upon  the  fact  that  he 
acted  under  the  orders  of  the  engineer,  the  precise  bearing  of 
the  dictum  just  referred  to  is  not  easy  to  determine. 

STATUTORY  MODIFICATION  OF  ASSUMPTION  OF  RISK 

The  rule  which  makes  employees  remediless  against  even 
the  gross  negligence  of  their  employer,  if  only  that  negligence 
is  habitual  and  notorious,  is  so  oppressive  to  workingmen 
that  organized  labor  has,  not  unnaturally,  long  sought  to  se- 
cure its  abrogation.  The  courts  having  shown  little  disposi- 
tion to  modify  the  Common  Law  in  this  respect,  the  labor 
unionists  appealed  to  the  legislature.  Their  first  success  was 
won  in  1890,  when  the  defense  of  assumption  of  risk  was 
abolished  as  against  violations  of  the  automatic  coupler  and 
brake  law  enacted  in  that  year.^'^*  They  had  to  wait  half  a 
generation  before  they  gained  strength  enough  to  carry  a 
second  outwork  iu  the  employer's  fortress.  A  bill  which 
would  have  enabled  emploj^ees  to  relieve  themselves  of  the 
assumption  of  extraordinary  risks  by  notifying  the  master 
of  defects  in  ways,  works,  or  machinery  was  introduced  at 
the  legislative  session  of  1906;^^^  but  was  defeated  by  the 
combined  opposition  of  manufacturers  and  railways.^^^  But 
at  the  next  meeting  of  the  General  Assembly,  the  Iowa  Fed- 
eration of  Labor  and  the  State  Manufacturers'  Association 
agreed  upon  a  compromise  measure  which  became  law.^^'^ 
The  assumption  of  risk  act  of  1907  is  as  follows : 

In  all  cases  where  the  property,  works,  machinery  or  appliances 
of  an  employer  are  defective  or  out  of  repair  and  the  employe  has 
knowledge  thereof,  and  has  given  written  notice  to  the  employer,  or 
to  any  person  authorized  to  receive  and  accept  such  notice,  or  to  any 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  167 

person  in  the  service  of  the  employer  and  entrusted  by  him  with 
the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  property,  works,  machinery  or  appliances 
are  in  proper  condition,  of  the  particular  defect  or  want  of  repair 
or  when  the  employer  or  such  other  person  has  been  notified  in 
writing  of  such  defect  or  want  of  repair  by  any  person  whose  duty 
it  is  under  the  rules  of  the  employer  or  the  laws  of  the  state  to  in- 
spect such  works,  machinery  or  appliances,  or  any  person  who  is 
subject  to  the  risk  incident  to  such  defect  or  want  of  repair;  no  em- 
ploye after  such  notice,  shall  by  reason  of  remaining  in  the  employ- 
ment with  such  knowledge,  be  deemed  to  have  assumed  the  risk  in- 
cident to  the  danger  arising  from  such  defect  or  want  of  repair.^^^ 

This  statute  has  not  been  adjudicated,  so  that  its  precise 
effect  cannot  be  determined.  Apparently  it  completely  super- 
sedes the  Common  Law  doctrines  as  to  the  effect  of  protest 
and  promise  to  repair.  The  latter,  as  we  have  seen,  relieved 
only  the  employee  to  whom  the  promise  was  made — and  him 
only  so  long  as  he  might  reasonably  expect  the  promise  to 
be  kept.  Under  the  act  of  1907,  on  the  contrary,  a  promise 
to  repair  is  unnecessary;  a  notice  of  a  defect  given  to  the 
master  or  his  representative  by  a  single  employee  or  by  a 
public  official  relieves  all  employees  from  assumption  of  the 
risk  of  that  defect.  It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  the  statute 
gives  the  employee  a  considerably  better  position  than  he  had 
mider  the  Common  Law,  It  is  no  less  clear,  however,  that  it 
does  not  by  any  means  wholly  relieve  him  from  assumption 
of  risks  due  to  the  master's  negligence.  If  the  employee, 
either  from  fear  of  discharge  or  for  any  other  reason,  fails 
to  give  the  master  or  his  representative  formal  notice  of  de- 
fects which  come  to  his  knowledge,  his  Common  Law  assump- 
tion of  risk  remains  in  full  force. 

THE   FELLOW-SERVANT    DOCTRINE 

It  is  an  ancient  rule  of  law  that  a  master  is  liable  for  all 
damages  which  third  persons  may  sustain  from  the  wrong- 
ful acts  of  his  servant  done  in  the  course  of  his  employment. 
To  this  rule  there  is  an  important  exception  which  was  estab- 
lished in  a  series  of  decisions  in  England  and  America  shortly 
before  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  and  which  has 


168         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

long  been  recognized  in  all  Common  Law  jurisdictions.  That 
exception  is  that  where  different  persons  are  employed  by  the 
same  principal  in  a  common  enterprise  no  action  can  be 
brought  by  them  against  their  employer  on  account  of  injuries 
sustained  by  one  employee  through  the  negligence  of  an- 
other.®^^ 

The  fellow-servant  doctrine,  or  the  doctrine  of  co-employ- 
ment, was  already  fixed  in  the  Common  Law  before  the  first 
case  under  it  came  up  for  adjudication  in  Iowa.  But  the  de- 
termination of  the  precise  limits  within  which  the  doctrine 
applies  has  given  rise  to  a  great  volume  of  litigation  continu- 
ing to  the  present  day.  With  the  growth  of  the  corporate 
organization  of  industry,  by  which  enterprises  are  wholly 
conducted  through  employees  of  various  grades,  the  fellow- 
servant  rule  has  become  increasingly  important  as  a  defense 
of  employers.  Eigidly  applied,  as  it  is  by  some  courts,  the 
doctrine  defeats  recovery  for  almost  all  injuries  received  in 
the  service  of  large  employers.  Fortunately,  however,  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  has  manifested  a  disposition  to  re- 
strict rather  than  to  extend  the  application  of  the  rule.  Sev- 
eral qualifications  of  the  broad  doctrine  are,  accordingly, 
recognized  in  this  State,  by  which  its  injustice  is  somewhat 
mitigated. 

CONCURRENT   NEGLIGENCE  OF  MASTER  AND  FELLOW-SERVANT 

Where  negligence  on  the  part  of  the  master  is  the  proxi- 
mate cause  of  an  injury  to  an  employee,  the  fact  that  the 
wrongful  act  of  another  employee  cooperated  therewith  to 
produce  the  injury  will  not  relieve  the  master  of  liability. "^^^ 
In  other  words,  while  the  contributory  negligence  of  the  in- 
jured employee  is  a  bar  to  recovery,  that  of  a  fellow-servant 
is  not.  This  rule  is  but  a  special  application  of  the  general 
principle  that  where  a  wrongful  act  concurs  with  some  other 
cause  and  both  operate  proximately  in  producing  an  injury, 
the  wrong-doer  will  be  liable,  whether  or  not  the  other  cause  is 
one  for  which  he  is  responsible."^^^ 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY  169 

NON-DELEGABLE  DUTIES 

The  master  can  not  so  delegate  certain  duties  which  de- 
volve upon  him  as  to  escape  liability  for  their  non-perform- 
ance or  mal-performance  under  the  fellow-servant  ruleJ^^ 
Among  non-delegable  duties  are  those  to  furnish  a  safe  place 
to  work,'^^^  to  provide  safe  tools  and  appliances,  to  hire  com- 
petent servants,'^*^^  to  warn  servants  of  latent  dangers/*^^  to 
instruct  them  in  the  performance  of  new  duties,"^*^^  and  to 
exercise  proper  control  and  supervision  over  the  workJ^'^  An 
employee  to  whom  the  performance  of  these  or  similar  duties 
is  entrusted  becomes,  as  to  them,  an  agent  or  vice  principal 
for  whose  negligence  the  master  is  liableJ^^ 

VICE   PRESrCIPALSHIP 

To  the  rule  that  a  master  is  not  answerable  to  one  servant 
for  the  negligence  of  another,  an  exception  arises  where  the 
servant  who  is  guilty  of  the  wrongful  act  stands  to  the  master 
in  the  relation  of  vice  principal.  This  exception  was  referred 
to  in  the  first  fellow-servant  case  in  Iowa  as  being  already 
recognized  by  the  courts  of  Ohio.'^^^  It  was  applied  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  Iowa  as  early  as  1866  '^^'^  and  has  long  been 
the  established  law  of  this  State. 

Two  tests  of  vice  principalship  have  been  applied  by  the 
Iowa  courts:  the  authority  or  rank  of  the  servant;  and  the 
character  of  the  act  or  service  concerning  which  negligence 
is  charged."^^^ 

RANK  AS  A  TEST  OF  VICE  PRINCIPAIjSHIP 

The  mere  fact  that  an  employee  has  authority  to  direct 
others  at  their  work  does  not  make  him  a  vice  principalJ^^ 
But  a  manager  who  has  full  direction  of  the  business,  or  of  a 
particular  department  or  undertaking,  is  a  vice  principal  as 
to  acts  within  the  scope  of  his  authority."^^^  In  a  number  of 
cases  the  authority  to  hire  and  discharge  men  is  made  the 
test  of  vice  principalship  and  it  is  said  that  an  employee  who 
possesses  this  authority  is  not  a  fellow-servant  but  a  vice 
principaU^* 


170         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

It  follows  from  what  has  just  been  said  that  a  mere  fore- 
man— that  is,  a  laborer  with  power  to  superintend  the  labor 
of  those  working  with  him — is  a  co-employee  so  far  as  his 
own  labor  is  concerned.'^^^  Accordingly,  liability  has  been 
denied  when  the  delinquents  were  the  following  employees  {^^^ 
a  foreman  of  ear-repairers;'^'  a  foreman  superintending  the 
construction  of  a  house  for  a  contractor  ;'^^  or  a  machinist 
who  occasionally  called  other  employees  to  his  assistance.'^® 
On  the  other  hand,  recovery  was  allowed  for  the  negligence  of 
the  following  persons  in  their  capacity  as  supervisors :  a  sec- 
tion foreman;'-^  a  mine  boss;'^^  a  boss  driver  in  a  mine;'^^ 
a  railway  yard  foreman  ;'^^  a  locomotive  engineer  ;'2^  or  a 
brakeman  temporarily  in  charge  of  switching  operations.'^^ 

CHARACTER  OF  ACT  AS  A  TEST  OP  VICE  PRINCIPALSHIP 

There  are  some  Iowa  cases  which  appear  to  make  the  ques- 
tion of  vice  principalship  turn  upon  the  control  exercised  by 
the  servant  whose  status  is  in  dispute.'^^  But  the  test  more 
commonly  applied  in  this  State  is  the  character  of  the  act 
charged  as  negligent.  According  to  this  test,  an  employee  who 
is  entrusted  with  the  performance  of  a  personal  duty  of  the 
master  is,  as  to  such  service,  a  vice  principal,  and  his  negli- 
gence is  the  master's.'^'  But  a  servant,  whatever  his  rank  or 
grade,  who  undertakes  the  work  of  an  ordinary  employee  is, 
as  to  such  service,  a  co-servant  with  others  engaged  in  the 
same  work.'^^  This  doctrine  of  dual  capacity,  whereby  the 
same  person  may  be  a  vice  principal  as  to  some  acts  and  a 
co-employee  as  to  others,  may  now  be  considered  the  settled 
law  of  this  State.'29 

DEPARTMENTAL   DOCTRINE 

Expressions  are  used  in  certain  Iowa  cases  which  seem  to 
approve  the  doctrine  of  department  of  service.  Thus,  it  has 
been  held  that  a  bridge  builder  is  not  a  co-employee  of  a  train 
crew  upon  the  same  railway  line,'^°  that  a  brakeman  is  not  a 
fellow  servant  of  a  car  inspector,'^^  and  that  an  inspector  of 
machinery  is  not  engaged  in  the  same  service  with  an  oper- 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  171 

ative.'^^  But  the  real  test  of  common  employment  in  this 
State  appears  to  be  whether  or  not  the  negligence  of  the  de- 
linquent servant  was  a  risk  contemplated  by  the  injured  serv- 
ant in  entering  and  remaining  in  his  master's  service.  Prob- 
ably the  plaintiff's  right  to  recover  in  all  the  cases  above 
cited  might  be  based  upon  the  doctrine  of  unanticipated  risk, 
or  upon  that  of  non-delegable  duty.  The  Supreme  Court  has 
explicitly  held  that  the  fact  that  two  servants  are  engaged  in 
different  branches  of  the  common  service  can  make  no  differ- 
ence, so  long  as  both  are  employed  in  the  same  general  busi- 
ness under  one  master.''^^  By  the  test  of  anticipated  risk  the 
following  employees  have  been  held  to  be  co-servants :  a  ma- 
chinist engaged  in  placing  shafting  in  a  shop  and  an  operative 
of  one  of  the  machines  ;'^^'^  a  track  inspector  and  a  locomotive 
engineer  ;^^^  a  sweeper  and  other  employees  in  a  round 
house  ;'^^®  a  coal-miner  and  road  men  employed  in  the  same 
mine;'^^'^  a  railway  detective  and  the  members  of  a  train 
crew.*^^^ 

EAILWAY   LIABILITY   ACT 

Courts  have  often  remarked  in  defense  of  the  fellow- 
servant  doctrine  that  the  servants  of  a  common  master  are 
able  to  know  and  guard  against  each  other's  negligence.'^^^ 
Such  a  contention  might  have  possessed  some  force  if  applied 
to  the  handicraft  system  of  industry  where  the  employees  of 
one  master  were  few  in  number  and  were  closely  associated 
at  their  work.  But  it  is  wholly  inapplicable  to  a  great  rail- 
way corporation  with  its  thousands  of  employees,  who  for  the 
most  part  are  necessarily  strangers  to  each  other.  And  yet  it 
is  precisely  in  railway  employment  that  the  fellow-servant 
rule  has  been  most  frequently  applied.  The  effect  of  its  first 
application  in  this  State  was  to  deny  recovery  to  a  railway 
track  inspector  injured  by  the  negligence  of  an  engineer. 

The  casualties  in  railway  service  are  so  shockingly  numer- 
ous and  recovery  in  so  large  a  percentage  of  them  is  defeated 
by  the  fellow-servant  rule  that  that  rule  has  been  abrogated 
by  statute  as  respects  railway  employment  in  a  number  of 


172         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Common  Law  jurisdictions.  The  Iowa  railway  liability  law 
was  first  enacted  in  1862,  only  two  years  after  the  adoption  of 
the  doctrine  of  co-service  by  our  Supreme  Court.  It  was  as 
follows : 

Everj""  rail-road  company  shall  be  liable  for  all  damages  sus- 
tained by  any  person,  including  employees  of  the  company,  in  con- 
sequence of  any  neglect  of  the  agents  or  by  any  mismanagement  of 
the  engineers  or  other  employees  of  the  corporation  to  any  person 
sustaining  such  damage.'^*^ 

The  words  ''all  contracts  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding" 
were  added  in  1870.'^*^  In  1872  railway  companies  were  made 
liable  for  the  wilful  wrongs  of  their  agents  and  employees  when 
such  wrongs  were  in  any  manner  connected  with  the  use  and 
operation  of  the  railroad.*^*^.  In  the  Code  of  1&73  these  three 
acts  were  combined  into  one  section  which  reads: 

Every  corporation  operating  a  railway  shall  be  liable  for  aU 
damages  sustained  by  any  person,  including  employes  of  such  cor- 
poration, in  consequence  of  the  neglect  of  agents,  or  by  any  mis- 
management of  the  engineers  or  other  employes  of  the  corporation,  and 
in  consequence  of  the  wilful  wrongs,  whether  of  commission  or  omis- 
sion of  such  agents,  engineers,  or  other  employes,  when  such  wrongs 
are  in  any  manner  connected  with  the  use  and  operation  of  any  rail- 
way, on  or  about  which  they  shall  be  employed,  and  no  contract 
which  restricts  such  liability  shall  be  legal  or  binding.'^*^ 

With  the  exception  of  the  final  clause,  relating  to  con- 
tracts, this  law  is  still  (1907)  the  same.*^** 

Judicial  construction  of  the  railway  liability  act  began  in 
1866  and  has  continued  to  the  present  day.  It  will  be  con- 
venient, however,  to  discuss  the  questions  which  have  arisen 
in  logical  order  as  presented  by  the  statute  rather  than  to 
trace  the  historical  development  of  judicial  interpretation. 

In  Iowa  all  the  duties  and  liabilities  imposed  by  law  upon 
"corporations  owning  or  operating  railways"  apply  to  any 
person  who  owns  or  operates  a  railway.'^*^  Accordingly,  the 
liability  law  has  been  held  to  apply  to  a  lessee,*^*^  to  a  re- 
ceiver,"^**^  and  to  a  railway  construction  company  which  moves 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  173 

trains  upon  the  track  in  furtherance  of  its  work."^*^  The  stat- 
ute does  not  apply  to  street  railway  companies/*^  though 
interurban  railways  were  brought  within  its  provisions  in 

The  constitutionality  of  the  railway  liability  law  has  been 
attacked  repeatedly,  but  without  success.  As  originally  en- 
acted the  liability  provision  was  a  section  of  "An  Act  in 
relation  to  the  duties  of  Eail  Road  Companies."  In  the  first 
case  which  arose  under  this  statute,  that  of  McAunich  vs. 
Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company  (20  Iowa  338) 
decided  in  1866,  it  was  contended  that  this  title  did  not  cover 
provisions  relative  to  the  liabilities  of  railroads  within  the 
meaning  of  that  section  of  the  State  Constitution  which  re- 
quires that  "Every  act  shall  embrace  but  one  subject,  and 
matters  properly  connected  therewith;  which  subject  shall  be 
expressed  in  the  title.  "^^^  The  Court  held  this  objection  to 
be  not  well  taken.  "Every  law",  it  was  said,  "prescribing 
duties  must  have  the  sanction  of  liabilities  resulting  from  a 
failure  to  perform  those  duties,  in  order  to  have  any  practical 
beneficial  effect  or  operation." 

But  the  burden  of  the  attack  upon  the  constitutionality  of 
the  law  has  been  that  it  is  class  legislation.  Thus,  it  has  been 
argued  that  the  statute  violates  the  State  Constitution  in  that 
it  is  not  uniform  in  operation,  and  in  that  it  grants  privileges 
and  imposes  habilities  which  are  not  extended  upon  the  same 
terms  to  all  citizens  of  the  State  ;'^^^  and  that  it  contravenes 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  by  depriving  railway  companies  of  the  equal  protection 
of  the  law. 

The  objection  that  the  statute  is  not  uniform  in  operation 
was  disposed  of  in  the  McAunich  case  above  cited.  The  Court 
said: 

It  [the  statute]  applies  to  all  railroad  corporations  now  in  exist- 
ence, or  which  may  hereafter  exist,  and  is  just  as  general  and  uni- 
form as  it  would  be  if  it  applied  to  all  common  carriers.  ,  .  .  Very 
many  laws,  the  constitutionahty  of  which  are  [is]   not  doubted,  do 


174         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

not  operate  alike  upon  all  citizens  of  the  State.  .  .  .  These  laws 
are  general  and  uniform,  not  because  they  operate  upon  every  person 
in  the  State,  for  they  do  not,  but  because  every  person 
who  is  brought  within  the  relations  and  circumstances  provided  for, 
is  affected  by  the  law.  They  are  general  and  uniform  in  their  opera- 
tion upon  all  persons  in  the  like  situation,  and  the  fact  of  their  be- 
ing general  and  uniform  is  not  affected  by  the  number  of  persons 
within  the  scope  of  their  operation. 

A  similar  line  of  reasoning  disposes  of  the  contention  that 
the  law  violates  the  Constitution  of  Iowa  and  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  by  subjecting  railroad  corporations  to 
penalties  and  liabilities  which  other  persons  and  corporations 
engaged  in  a  like  business  are  not  subjected  to.  For,  it  is 
said,  the  business  of  operating  a  railway  is  peculiarly  hazard- 
ous, and  as  the  statute  applies  to  all  corporations  or  persons 
engaged  in  operating  railroads  it  does  not  discriminate  in 
favor  of  or  against  anyone.  It  is  a  pure  question  of  legis- 
lative discretion  whether  like  penalties  and  liabilities  should 
be  applied  to  carriers  by  canal  or  stage  coach,  or  to  persons 
and  corporations  using  steam  in  manufactories."^^^ 

Finally,  the  act,  rightly  construed,  does  not  grant  to  rail- 
way employees  any  privileges  or  immunities  which  are  not 
open  upon  the  same  terms  to  all  persons  in  the  same  situa- 
tion.'^^* In  reaching  this  conclusion,  however,  the  Court  held 
in  the  case  of  Deppe  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island,  and  Pacific 
Eailway  Company  (36  Iowa,  52)  that  the  act  must  be  so  con- 
strued as  to  embrace  not  all  railway  employees  but  only  those 
*' engaged  in  the  hazardous  business  of  operating  railroads". 
''When  thus  limited",  said  the  Court,  "it  is  constitutional; 
when  extended  further  it  becomes  unconstitutional."  The 
reasoning  was  that  if  applied  to  all  persons  in  the  employ  of 
railroad  corporations  the  statute  would  secure  privileges  to 
certain  persons  (section  hands  for  example)  which  were  de- 
nied to  others  in  equally  perilous  callings.  The  effect  of  this 
decision  was  materially  to  limit  the  applicability  of  the  law  of 
1862,  the  terms  of  which  had  included  all  railway  employees. 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  175 

The  act  of  1872  and  the  Code  of  1873  introduced  a  new  ele- 
ment in  the  proviso,  ''when  such  wrongs  of  employees  are  in 
any  manner  connected  with  the  use  and  operation  of  any 
railway,  on  or  about  which  they  shall  be  employed."  The 
Supreme  Court  has  held  that  the  words  ''such  wrongs"  in 
this  clause  refer  to  negligent  acts  as  well  as  wilful  wrongs, 
and  that  recovery  under  the  statute  can  only  be  had  for  in- 
juries arising  from  the  use  and  operation  of  railroads."^^^ 

The  phrase,  "use  and  operation  of  a  railway",  is  judi- 
cially defined  as  referring  only  to  the  "handling  of  railroad 
machinery  moved  upon  railroad  tracks  "."^^^  Justice  Beck, 
speaking  for  the  Supreme  Court,  remarked  in  a  leading  case : 
"What  is  the  use  and  operation  of  a  railway?  It  is  con- 
structed for  the  sole  purpose  of  the  movement  of  trains.  That 
is  its  sole  use.  What  is  the  operation  of  a  railway?  They 
can  be  operated  in  no  other  way  than  by  the  movements  of 
trains. "'^^'^  But  the  word  "trains"  as  here  used  must  be 
understood  to  include  all  railroad  machinery  moved  upon 
railroad  tracks,  as  a  single  locomotive'^^^  or  a  hand  car.'^^^ 

The  decisions  are  not  in  complete  accord  as  to  the  test  by 
which  the  right  of  recovery  under  the  statute  shall  be  deter- 
mined. Under  the  act  of  1862  the  test  applied  was,  whether 
or  not  the  injured  servant  was  employed  for  the  discharge  of 
a  duty  which  exposed  him  to  the  hazards  incident  to  the  oper- 
ation of  a  railway.  Under  this  rule,  apparently,  an  employee 
would  have  been  entitled  to  recover  for  an  injury  which  did 
not  arise  from  the  peculiar  hazards  of  railway  operation  so 
long  as  his  employment  embraced  them.'^^^ 

This  rule  just  stated  was  changed  by  the  act  of  1873.  Since 
that  date,  to  entitle  an  employee  to  recover  for  the  negligence 
of  a  co-employee,  it  must  be  shown  (1)  that  he  belonged  to 
the  class  of  employees  to  whom  the  statute  affords  a  remedy 
and  (2)  that  the  act  which  occasioned  the  injury  was  of  the 
class  of  acts  for  which  a  remedy  is  given.'^^^ 

As  to  the  class  of  employees  within. the  protection  of  the 
statute,  it  has  been  said  that  its  benefits  accrue  only  to  such 


176         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

employees  as  are  employed  at  the  time  of  receiving  the  injury 
in  the  business  of  operating  a  railroadJ^^  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  cases  holding  that  it  is  sufficient  if  the  injury  was 
caused  by  the  operation  of  the  railroad,  irrespective  of  the 
employment  in  which  the  plaintiff  was  engaged.'^^^  But,  in 
spite  of  some  diversity  of  expression,  if  not  actual  conflict, 
a  majority  of  the  cases  hold  that  under  the  act  of  1873  as 
well  as  that  of  1862  any  employee  is  within  the  protection  of 
the  statute  while  engaged  in  the  performance  of  a  duty  which 
exposes  him  to  hazards  peculiar  to  the  operation  of  a  rail- 
way.'^^*  Ordinarily  the  character  of  an  employment  and 
whether  or  not  thereby  the  employee  is  brought  within  the 
provisions  of  the  statute  are  questions  of  fact  for  a  jury  and 
not  of  law  for  the  court J^^  But  where  there  is  no  dispute 
in  the  evidence  upon  these  propositions  the  court  may  instruct 
the  jury  as  to  whether  or  not  the  case  comes  within  the 
statute.'^^^ 

We  have  already  seen  that  the  statute  affords  a  remedy 
only  for  wrongs  connected  with  the  use  and  operation  of  a 
railway.  The  following  judicial  statement  of  the  effect  of 
the  statute  combines  the  two  elements  of  the  character  of  the 
employment  and  the  cause  of  the  injury: 

If,  then,  the  injury  is  received  by  an  employe  whose  work  ex- 
poses him  to  the  hazards  of  moving  trains,  cars,  engines,  or  machin- 
ery on  the  track,  and  is  caused  by  the  negligence  of  a  co-employe  in 
the  actual  movement  thereof,  or  in  any  manner  directly  connected 
therewith,  the  statute  applies,  and  recovery  may  be  had.  Beyond 
this,  the  statute  affords  no  protection.  '^^'^ 

Some  concrete  cases  in  which  recovery  has  been  allowed 
or  denied  will  serve  to  further  elucidate  the  effect  of  the 
statute. 

All  persons  engaged  in  the  actual  operation  of  trains  are 
within  the  statute  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  essential  ques- 
tions in  cases  where  members  of  train  crews  are  plaintiffs  are 
whether  the  co-servant  was  in  fact  negligent,  and  whether 
the  injured  employee  was  himself    in    fault.*^^^      But  other 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  177 

classes  of  employees  have  from  the  first  been  held  to  be  within 
the  protection  of  the  statute.*^^^    Among  these  are : 

First.  Persons  employed  upon  a  train,  though  having 
nothing  to  do  with  its  management.  A  laborer  employed  in 
the  working  of  a  ditching  machine  operated  by  moving  along 
the  track  the  train  of  which  it  formed  a  part,  is  a  member  of 
the  train  crew.''"^^  The  same  rule  applies  to  a  shoveler  upon 
a  gravel  train,'^'^^  and  to  a  laborer  who  rides  upon  a  train  and 
alights  from  time  to  time  to  clear  the  track  of  snow.'^'^ 

Second.  Employees  working  upon  or  about  a  ''live"  en- 
gine. An  employee  engaged  in  coaling  a  ''live"  engine,'^'^^  in 
coupling  tanks  together,  "^'^  or  in  operating  a  turn  table,"^"^^  is 
exposed  to  perils  peculiar  to  the  operation  of  a  railway. 

Third.  Employees  at  work  upon  a  car  which  forms  a  part 
of  a  train,  or  is  likely  to  be  moved  by  the  operation  of  trains. 
A  car  inspector  whose  duty  requires  him  to  go  beneath  all 
cars,''^®  a  car  repairer  injured  by  a  moving  engine  when  at 
work  in  a  railway  yard,"'^'^  a  car  cleaner  at  work  in  a  car 
standing  upon  a  side  track  which  was  run  into  by  an  engine,'^'^^ 
and  a  mechanic  injured  while  repairing  one  of  the  cars  of  a 
train"^'^  were  each  held  to  be  within  the  protection  of  the 
statute. 

Fourth.  Employees  exposed  to  the  peril  of  passing  trains 
while  in  the  performance  of  their  duty  are  within  the  statute. 
This  rule  has  been  applied  to  a  railway  detective  rightfully 
walking  along  the  track,'^^^  to  a  water  carrier  for  a  bridge 
gang,'^^^  and  to  section  men  engaged  in  track  repairing — if  but 
injured  by  the  negligence  of  employees  engaged  in  the  opera- 
tion of  the  railroad. "^^^ 

Fifth.    Section  men  riding  upon  a  hand  car.*^^^ 

On  the  other  hand,  employees  in  the  following  situations 
have  been  held  not  to  be  engaged  in  the  operation  of  a  rail- 
way so  as  to  make  the  company  liable  for  the  negligence  of 
a  fellow-servant  in  the  same  employment:  employees  in  a 
railway  machine  shop;'^*  employees  engaged  in  hoisting  coal 
in  a  railway  coal  house  f^^  sweepers  in  a  round  house  ;'^^^  men 


178         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

repairing  a  "dead"  engine ;'^^'^  section  hands  repairing  the 
track  ;^^^  or  men  loading  a  detached  carJ^® 

As  to  all  cases  not  embraced  in  the  statute,  the  Common 
Law  rule  exempting  the  employer  from  liability  to  an  em- 
ployee for  the  negligence  of  a  co-employee  is  still  in  force/*"* 
Even  as  to  cases  within  its  terms  the  statute  does  not  change 
the  degree  of  care  due  from  a  master  to  his  servants,"^  nor 
does  it  affect  the  defense  of  contributory  negligence/^- 

The  clause  in  the  railway  liability  act  reading  that  "no 
contract  which  restricts  such  liabilitj^  shall  be  legal  or  bind- 
ing", has  been  attacked  as  an  unconstitutional  interference 
with  "freedom  of  contract".  The  Court,  in  overruling  this 
contention,  remarked: 

There  is  no  such  thing  as  absolute  liberty  of  contract.  Indeed, 
all  personal  and  property  rights  are  subject  to  proper  legislative 
regulation  and  control.  ...  A  very  great  proportion  of  our  legis- 
lation is  a  restriction  on  some  one's  liberty.  Indeed,  the  liberty  of 
which  we  boast  and  are  so  justly  proud  is  liberty  under  law,  and  not 
absolute  license.  It  is  freedom  frequently  restrained  by  law  for  the 
common  good.'^^^ 

An  agreement  entered  into  at  the  time  of  the  employment 
between  the  company  and  an  employee  that  if  he  sustains  any 
personal  injury  for  which  he  makes  a  claim  against  the  com- 
pany for  damages,  failure  to  give  notice  thereof  in  writing 
within  thirty  days  after  injury  is  sustained  shall  be  a  bar  to 
action,  is  a  contract  restricting  the  company's  liability,  and  is 
therefore  invalid."^^*  But  where  a  railway  company  maintains 
a  relief  department  to  which  both  the  company  and  its  em- 
ployees contribute,  a  stipulation  in  the  certificate  of  member- 
ship in  such  association  that  a  suit  which  ripens  to  judgment 
or  is  compromised  shall  bar  recovery  under  the  certificate,  or 
that  the  acceptance  of  benefits  from  the  department  shall  oper- 
ate as  a  release  and  satisfaction  of  all  claims  against  the  com- 
pany, is  not  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  1870  and  1873.'^^^ 

The  last  decision  had  reference  to  the  Burlington  Volun- 
tary Relief  Department,  organized  in  1889.     The  essential 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  179 

features  of  this  organization  are  shown  in  the  following  ex- 
tracts from  the  application  blank: 

APPLICATIONS 

Membership  in  the  relief  fund  shall  be  based  upon  an  application 
in  the  following  form: 

I,    ,  of ,  in  the 

county  of and  state  of ,  now 

employed  by  the  Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad  company  as 
the  do  hereby  apply  for  member- 
ship in  the  relief  fund  of  the  relief  department  of  said  company,  and 
consent  and  agree  to  be  bound  by  the  regulations  of  said  relief  de- 
partment, which  regulations  I  have  read  or  have  had  read  to  me,  and 
by  any  other  regulations  of  said  department  hereafter  adopted  and 
in  force  during  my  membership,  and  by  any  agreement  now  or  here- 
after made  by  the  said  company  with  any  other  corporation  or  cor- 
porations now  or  hereafter  associated  with  it  in  the  administration 
of  their  relief  departments. 

I  also  agree,  that  the  said  company,  by  its  proper  agents,  and  in 
the  manner  provided  in  said  regulations,  shall  apply,  as  a  voluntary 
contribution  from  any  wages  earned  by  me  under  said  employment 
or  from  benefits  that  may  hereafter  become  payable  to  me,  the  sum 

of  $ per  month,  for  the  purpose  of  securing  the  benefits 

provided  in  the  regulations  for  a  member  of  the  relief  fund  of  the 

class,  with  additional  death  benefit 

of  the  first  class. 

I  also  agree,  that  in  consideration  of  the  amounts  paid  and  to  be 
paid  by  said  company  for  the  maintenance  of  said  relief  department, 
and  of  the  guarantee  of  said  company  of  the  payment  of  said  bene- 
fits, the  acceptance  by  me  of  benefits  for  injury  shall  operate  as  a 
release  and  satisfaction  of  all  claims  against  said  company  and  all 
other  companies  associated  therewith  in  the  administration  of  their 
relief  departments,  for  damages  arising  from  or  growing  out  of  said 
injury ;  and  further,  in  the  event  of  my  death,  no  part  of  said  death 
benefit  or  unpaid  disability  benefit  shall  be  due  or  payable  unless 
and  until  good  and  sufficient  releases  shall  be  delivered  to  the  super- 
intendent of  said  relief  department,  of  all  claims  against  said  relief 
department,  as  well  as  against  said  company,  and  all  other  com- 


180         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

panics  associated  therewith  as  aforesaid  arising  from  or  growing  out 
of  my  death,  said  releases  having  been  duly  executed  by  all  who 
might  legally  assert  such  claims;  and  further,  if  any  suit  shall  be 
brought  against  said  company,  or  any  other  company  associated 
therewith  as  aforesaid,  for  damages  arising  from  or  growing  out  of 
injury  or  death  occurring  io  me,  the  benefits  otherwise  payable  and 
all  obligations  of  said  relief  department  and  of  said  company  created 
by  my  membership  in  said  relief  fund,  shall  thereupon  be  forfeited 
without  any  declaration  or  other  act  by  said  relief  department  of 
said  company. 

I  also  agree,  that  this  application,  upon  approval  by  the  super- 
intendent of  the  relief  department,  shall  make  me  a  member  of  the 
relief  fund,  on  and  from  the  date  specified  in  such  approval,  and 
constitute  a  contract  between  myself  and  the  said  company,  and  that 
the  same  shall  not  be  avoided  by  any  change  in  the  character  of  my 
service,  or  locality  where  rendered,  while  in  the  employment  of  said 
company,  nor  by  any  change  in  the  amounts  applicable  from  my 
wages  to  the  relief  fund,  which  I  may  hereafter  consent  to,  and  that 
the  agreement  that  the  above  named  amounts  shall  be  appropriated 
from  my  wages  shall  apply  also  to  any  other  amounts  which  I  may 
agree  to  pay  under  the  provisions  of  said  regulations,  by  reason  of 
changes  made  as  aforesaid,  and  shall  constitute  an  appropriation  and 
assignment  in  advance  of  such  portions  of  my  wages,  to  the  said 
company  in  trust,  for  the  relief  fund,  for  the  purpose  of  maintain- 
ing my  membership  therein,  which  assignment  shall  have  precedence 
over  any  other  assignment  by  me  of  my  wages,  or  of  any  claim  upon 
them  on  account  of  liabilities  incurred  by  me. 

I  certify  that  I  am  correct  and  temperate  in  my  habits;  that  so 
far  as  I  am  aware  I  am  now  in  good  health,  and  have  no  injury  or 
disease,  constitutional  or  otherwise,  except  as  shown  on  the  accom- 
panying statement  made  by  me  to  the  medical  examiner,  which  state- 
ment shall  constitute  a  part  of  this  application. 

I  also  agree  that  any  untrue  or  fraudulent  statement  made  by 
me  to  the  medical  examiner,  or  any  concealment  of  facts  in  this  ap- 
plication, or  any  attempt  on  my  part  to  defraud  or  impose  upon  said 
relief  fund,  or  my  resigning  from,  or  leaving  the  service  of  the  said 
company,  or  my  being  relieved  or  discharged  therefrom,  shall  for- 
feit my  membership  in  the  said  relief  fund,  and  all  benefits,  rights 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS'  LIABILITY  181 

or  equities  arising  therefrom,  except  that  such  termination  of  my 
employment  shall  not  (in  the  absence  of  any  of  the  other  foregoing 
causes  of  forfeiture)  deprive  me  of  any  benefits  to  the  payment  of 
which  I  may  be  entitled  by  reason  of  disability  beginning  before  and 
existing  at  such  termination  of  my  employment,  nor  of  the  right  to 
continue  my  membership  in  respect  of  death  benefits  only,  as  pro- 
vided in  said  regulations. 

It  was  asserted  by  employees  that  membership  in  the  Re- 
lief Department  was  practically  compulsory,  at  least  for  train- 
men. The  company  claimed,  on  the  contrary,  that  member- 
ship was  purely  voluntary  and  that  the  organization  was 
wholly  benevolent  in  purpose."^^^  Whatever  the  truth  of  these 
respective  assertions,  it  is  abundantly  clear  from  the  contract 
of  membership  above  quoted  that  members  of  the  organiza- 
tion practically  became  their  own  insurers.  The  Relief  De- 
partment thus  operated  to  relieve  the  company  of  its  liability 
under  the  common  and  statutory  law. 

The  Supreme  Court's  decision  upholding  the  validity  of 
the  Burlington  Relief  contracts  was  a  surprise.  It  was  felt 
that  under  this  decision  it  would  be  possible  for  every  railway 
company  to  defeat  the  purpose  of  the  liability  law  by  making 
membership  in  some  similar  association  a  condition  of  em- 
ployment. Accordingly  railroad  employees  at  once  began 
demanding  legislation  which  should  expressly  invalidate  such 
contracts  as  that  used  upon  the  Burlington  system.  Their 
demands  were  embodied  in  the  following  amendment  to  the 
railway  liability  law,  which  was  presented  by  Representative 
Temple  at  the  special  session  of  the  legislature  in  1897: 

Nor  shall  any  contract  of  insurance,  relief,  benefit,  or  indemnity 
in  case  of  injury  or  death,  nor  any  other  contract  entered  into  prior 
to  the  injury,  between  the  person  so  injured  and  such  corporation, 
or  any  other  person  or  association  acting  for  such  corporation,  nor 
shall  the  acceptance  of  any  insurance,  relief,  benefit  or  indemnity  by 
the  person  injured  after  the  injury,  from  such  corporation,  person 
or  association,  constitute  any  bar  or  defense  to  any  cause  of  action 
brought  under  the  provisions  of  this  section.*^^' 


182         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  Temple  Amendment,  as  it  has  ever  since  been  called, 
was  adopted  by  the  House  without  opposition.  In  the  Senate, 
the  amendment  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Railways 
before  which  the  railway  brotherhoods  appeared  by  their 
officers  and  the  Burlington  Eailway  Company  by  attorney. 
The  committee  finally  reported  a  substitute  which  was  adopted 
by  the  Senate  and  rejected  by  the  House,  after  which  a  Con- 
ference Committee  threw  out  both  original  and  substitute.'^^^ 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature  the  Temple 
Amendment  passed  into  politics  and  its  principle  was  indorsed 
by  the  Eepublican  and  Democratic  parties  in  their  State  plat- 
forms of  that  year."^^^  An  act  embodying  that  principle  was 
accordingly  passed  at  the  next  session  of  the  G-eneral  Assem- 
bly (1898)  with  little  opposition.^*'^  The  law  as  enacted  is  as 
follows : 

Nor  shall  any  contract  of  insurance,  relief,  benefit  or  indemnity 
in  case  of  injury  or  death,  entered  into  prior  to  the  injury,  between 
the  person  so  injured  and  such  corporation,  nor  shall  the  acceptance 
of  any  such  insurance,  relief,  benefit,  or  indemnity  by  the  person  in- 
jured, his  widow,  heirs,  or  legal  representatives  after  the  injury, 
from  such  corporation,  person,  or  association,  constitute  any  bar  or 
defense  to  any  cause  of  action  brought  under  the  provisions  of  this 
section,  but  nothing  contained  herein  shall  be  construed  to  prevent 
or  invalidate  any  settlement  for  damages  between  the  parties  subse- 
quent to  injuries  received.^'^i 

The  Supreme  Court  has  held  in  a  recent  case  that  the  effect 
of  the  Temple  Amendment  is  to  invalidate  the  Burlington 
Eelief  contracts  so  far  as  these  undertake  to  restrict  the  lia- 
bility of  the  railway.^*^^  The  constitutionality  of  the  law  was 
considered  at  great  length  in  this  case  and  was  upheld  in 
every  point. 

CONCLUSION 

The  Common  Law  of  employers'  liability  has  been  mater- 
ially modified  in  the  direction  of  justice  and  humanity  by  the 
Iowa  statutes  of  railway  liability  and  assumption  of  risks. 
But  that  law,  even  as  thus  modified,  is  still  very  far  from 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY  183 

according  adequate  protection  to  employees  in  any  hazardous 
calling.  The  annual  reports  of  deaths  and  injuries  from  in- 
dustrial accidents  read  like  the  returns  of  a  great  battle.^*^^ 
For  most  of  these  deaths  and  injuries  our  law  affords  no 
remedy. 

Statistics  collated  by  the  German  Imperial  Insurance  Ofl&ce 
show  that  less  than  seventeen  percent  of  industrial  accidents 
are  caused  solely  by  the  negligence  of  the  employer,  that  more 
than  thirty-five  percent  are  in  some  measure  contributed  to  so 
as  to  defeat  recovery  under  our  law  by  the  injured  employee, 
and  that  above  forty  percent  are  due  to  inevitable  accidents 
connected  with  the  employment.^^*  These  statistics  are  the 
indictment  of  the  Common  Law  of  employers'  liability.  They 
make  it  clear  that  a  rule  which  permits  recovery  only  for  the 
negligence  of  the  master,  and  then  only  for  such  negligence 
as  was  not  ''assumed"  by  the  injured  employee,  throws  the 
chief  burden  of  industrial  accidents  upon  those  least  able  to 
bear  it  themselves  or  to  shift  it  to  others — ' '  on  the  individual 
workman,  disabled  for  service  through  the  mere  fact  of  his 
employment  at  the  time  and  place  of  the  occurrence  of  an 
inevitable  accident,  or  on  the  widow  and  children  of  such  work- 
man, if  the  accident  results  fatally.  "^°^ 

This  result  is  chiefly  due  to  the  doctrine  of  assumption  of 
risks  with  its  corollary,  the  fellow-servant  doctrine.  The  doc- 
trine of  contractual  assumption  of  risks  rests  upon  three  pre- 
suppositions : 

First.  It  is  said  that  wages  are  so  adjusted  to  the  hazards 
of  each  employment  as  to  afford  full  compensation  for  the 
risks  undertaken  by  the  employee.^^^  That  this  is  not  true 
is  a  matter  of  common  knowledge.  But  even  if  it  were  so, 
to  make  each  employee  his  own  insurer  imposes  upon  the 
individual  engaged  in  an  extra-hazardous  employment  risks 
for  which  his  wages  can  provide  no  adequate  reserve. 

Second.  It  is  asserted  that  the  effect  of  devolving  the 
risks  of  the  service  upon  the  employees  is  to  make  them  more 
careful  for  their  own  safety  than  they  would  otherwise  be.^*^^ 


184         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

This  theory  involves  nothing  less  than  the  supposition  that 
employees  deliberately  incur  loss  of  life  and  limb  in  order  that 
they  or  their  heirs  may  recover  damages  for  their  death  or 
injury.  The  statement  of  such  a  proposition  is  its  own  refu- 
tation. 

Third.  It  is  assumed  that  business  could  not  be  carried 
on  if  employers  were  compelled  to  bear  the  risks  of  employ- 
ment.^*'^ The  sufficient  answer  to  this  argument  is  that  indus- 
try is  successfully  prosecuted  in  countries  such  as  Great 
Britain  and  the  German  Empire  where  that  rule  is  established 
by  law. 

There  is  even  less  logical  justification  for  the  theory  that 
an  employee  voluntarily  waives  his  master's  negligence  by 
continuing  at  work  with  knowledge  of  such  negligence.  True, 
it  is  said  that  the  servant's  continuance  in  his  master's  em- 
ployment is  purely  voluntary — ^he  has  the  right  to  quit  the 
service  at  any  time.^^^  In  other  words,  the  employee  is  guar- 
anteed the  inalienable  right  to  starve.  The  facts  of  every  day 
experience  show  that  men  will  often  choose  even  dangerous 
employment  rather  than  safety  attended  with  want.^^^ 

Similarly,  it  is  now  generally  admitted  that  the  fellow- 
servant  doctrine  has  very  little  foundation  in  reason  or  jus- 
tice.^^^  Indeed,  very  competent  authorities  have  said  that 
the  doctrine  was  boldly  invented  by  ''a  small  number  of  able 
judges,  devoted,  from  varying  motives,  to  the  supposed  inter- 
ests of  the  wealthy  classes,  and  caring  little  for  any  others  ".^^^ 

If  the  foregoing  analysis  is  correct — and  it  is  believed 
to  represent  the  opinions  of  most  careful  students  of  this 
subject — it  is  plain  that  the  Common  Law  of  employers'  lia- 
bility does  not  rest  upon  any  secure  logical  foundations.  Cer- 
tainly it  can  not  be  said  to  meet  the  ends  of  social  justice. 
Three  tests  of  this  assertion  may  be  applied : 

First.  Sound  public  policy  surely  requires  that  the  vic- 
tims of  industrial  accidents  shall  have  cheap,  speedy,  and 
certain  relief.  This  the  law  of  Iowa  does  not  furnish.  Even 
in  those  cases  where  recovery  is  allowed,  years  of  litigation 


THE  LAW  OF  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY  185 

very  commonly  intervene  between  an  injury  and  final  judg- 
ment therefor.  And  of  the  damages  ultimately  collected  a 
large  (sometimes  the  larger)  part  is  appropriated  by  attor- 
neys. 

Second.  Society  has  a  direct  interest  in  the  prevention 
of  industrial  accidents.  But  under  the  existing  law  of  em- 
ployers' liability  it  is  often  cheaper  for  the  wealthy  employer 
to  go  on  killing  and  maiming  his  men  than  to  adopt  practical 
but  costly  appliances  for  their  safety.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
the  general  adoption  of  safety  appliances  at  coal  mines,  upon 
railways,  and  in  factories  was  brought  about,  not  by  the  appli- 
cation of  the  Conunon  Law  to  personal  injury  suits,  but  by 
penal  statutes. 

Third.  It  will  hardly  be  denied  that  the  financial  burdens 
of  industrial  accidents  ought  to  be  distributed  over  industry 
at  large.  Our  law,  on  the  contrary,  places  the  chief  part  of 
these  burdens  upon  the  individual  working  man  and  his 
family. 


IX 

MISCELLANEOUS  LABOR  LEGISLATION 

In  this  chapter  it  is  proposed  to  discuss  laws  which  can 
not  conveniently  be  brought  under  any  classificatory  heading. 

INCORPOEATION  OF  LABOR  ORGANIZATIONS 

An  act  passed  by  the  General  Assembly  in  1886  extended 
the  general  statute  governing  the  incorporation  of  associa- 
tions not  for  pecuniary  profit  to  "trades  union  and  other 
organizations  of  labor,  for  the  regulation,  by  lawful  means  of 
prices  of  labor,  of  hours  of  work,  and  other  matters  pertaining 
to  industrial  pursuits.  "^^^  This  is  believed  to  be  the  earliest 
recognition  of  labor  unions  in  the  laws  of  this  State.  It  has 
not  had  much  practical  effect,  owing  to  the  reluctance  of  labor 
organizations  to  incorporate  themselves. 

BLACKLISTING 

Following  the  example  of  a  number  of  the  American  Com- 
monwealths, Iowa  in  1888  enacted  a  blacklisting  law  which 
makes  it  a  misdemeanor  for  any  person,  agent,  company,  or 
corporation  to  prevent  or  attempt  to  prevent  by  word  or  writ- 
ing of  any  kind  any  discharged  employee  from  obtaining  em- 
ployment with  any  other  person,  company,  or  corporation.  But 
a  truthful  statement,  in  writing,  of  the  causes  of  discharge  may 
be  furnished  upon  request.  Penal  damages  may  be  recovered 
for  any  loss  of  employment  due  to  blacklisting.  Moreover, 
for  blacklisting  by  the  agents  of  any  company,  co-partnership, 
or  corporation,  of  any  discharged  employee  or  of  any  em- 
ployee voluntarily  quitting  the  service  of  such  company,  co- 
partnership, or  corporation  treble  damages  are  allowed.^^* 
This  statute  appears  never  to  have  been  construed  by  the 
Supreme  Court. 


MISCELLANEOUS  LABOR  LEGISLATION  187 

BOYCOTTING 

Boycotting  is  not  specifically  prohibited  by  the  Iowa  stat- 
utes, and  no  case  so  far  as  known  has  ever  come  before  the 
Supreme  Court.  But  a  boycott  is,  no  doubt,  within  the  terms 
of  the  general  conspiracy  law,  dating  from  1851,  which  makes 
it  a  crime  punishable  by  imprisonment  in  the  penitentiary  to 
conspire  ''to  injure  the  person,  character,  business,  or  prop- 
erty of  another;  or  to  do  any  illegal  act  injurious  to  the  pub- 
lic trade.  "^^^ 

PROTECTION   OF   UNION   LABELS 

Laws  to  prevent  the  counterfeiting  or  unauthorized  use  of 
labor  union  labels  exist  in  most  States.  A  bill  for  such  a  law 
in  Iowa  was  introduced  by  Senator  W.  W.  Dodge  at  the  legis- 
lative session  of  1892  and  was  passed  without  opposition.  The 
act  makes  it  a  misdemeanor  to  imitate  any  label,  trade-mark, 
or  form  of  advertisement  adopted  by  any  person,  association, 
or  union  of  workingmen  or  others;  or  knowingly  to  use  any 
imitation  or  counterfeit  thereof;  or  to  use  the  genuine  label, 
trade-mark,  or  advertisement  in  an  unauthorized  manner. 
The  manufacture,  sale,  use,  or  display  of  counterfeit  labels, 
trade-marks,  or  forms  of  advertisement  may  be  enjoined  and 
the  party  wronged  may  recover  damages,  including  the  profits 
resulting  from  the  wrongful  act  and  a  reasonable  attorney's 
fgg  816  rpj^^g  ^^|.  -jj^g  been  construed  by  the  Supreme  Court 
and  its  constitutionality  upheld.^^'^ 

EMPLOYMENT  AGENCIES 

The  bringing  together  of  the  buyers  and  sellers  of  labor  is 
a  function  not  as  yet  generally  undertaken  by  the  State.  Yet 
the  equilibrium  of  the  labor  market  concerns  very  nearly  the 
social  welfare.  Unemployment  most  frequently  falls  to  the 
lot  of  the  least  efficient  members  of  the  community — those 
whose  wages  are  lowest  and  whose  reserves  are  smallest. 
Moreover,  these  are  precisely  the  classes  who  are  least  able 
to  travel  in  search  of  work  or  to  avail  themselves  of  such 
sources  of  information  as  are  open  to  members  of  skilled 


188         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

trades  through  their  respective  unions.  Hence,  unless  pro- 
vided for  by  public  or  charitable  intelligence  offices  the  un- 
skilled laborer  is  left  at  the  mercy  of  private  employment 
agencies.  Many  of  these  agencies  are  conducted  honestly  iu 
the  interests  both  of  emj^loyer  and  employed.  Perhaps  a  still 
larger  number  take  advantage  of  the  helplessness  of  the  classes 
with  which  they  principally  deal  to  practice  fraud  and  extor- 
tion.^^^  The  argument  for  public  employment  offices  is  thus 
based  on  two  grounds:  (1)  social  utility  and  (2)  public  pro- 
tection. On  the  one  hand,  it  is  urged  that  such  offices  will 
benefit  employers  as  well  as  laborers ;  on  the  other,  that  their 
competition  will  drive  out  the  most  undesirable  of  the  private 
agencies. 

Five  free  public  employment  offices — the  first  in  the  United 
States — were  opened  in  Ohio  in  1890.^^^  About  a  year  later 
Commissioner  Sovereign  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Sta- 
tistics, encouraged  by  the  success  of  the  Ohio  experiment, 
strongly  recommended  that  his  bureau  be  authorized  to  main- 
tain a  free  emplojTnent  agency  in  connection  with  its  statistical 
work.    The  Commissioner  wrote  as  follows : 

Nearly  all  kinds  of  labor  is  in  a  transitional  state  caused  by  the 
rapid  evolution  in  the  mechanical  methods  of  production  and  the 
practice  of  many  manufacturers  to  control  the  output  by  closing  fac- 
tories and  otherwise  limiting  the  supply,  which  is  usually  done  with- 
out notice  to  employes  and  without  considering  their  welfare.  Hun- 
dreds of  our  working  people  are  compelled  by  these  and  other  causes 
to  seek  employment  among  strangers  without  any  knowledge  of 
whether  it  is  obtainable  or  not The  first  duty  of  a  govern- 
ment is  to  make  it  easy  for  its  citizens  to  do  right  and  accord  them 
the  broadest  opportunity  to  earn  a  livelihood  by  industrial  avocations. 
Therefore  the  need  of  free  public  employment  agencies  where  both 
labor  and  capital  may  make  their  wants  known  and  receive  informa- 
tion beneficial  to  both.^^o 

This  argument  deeply  impressed  G-overnor  Boies,  who  gave 
a  warm  indorsement  to  the  Commissioner's  recommendation 
in  his  first  message  to  the  legislature  in  January,  1892.^2i    ^ 


MISCELLANEOUS  LABOR  LEGISLATION  189 

bill  was  soon  afterward  introduced  providing  for  an  employ- 
ment office  in  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  to  be 
conducted  wholly  by  correspondence.  The  bill  was  supported 
by  numerous  petitions,  but  failed  to  reach  a  vote  in  either 
branch  of  the  legislature.^22  rp^^  years  later  another  bill  was 
presented  to  the  General  Assembly,  this  time  providing  for 
correspondence  offices  in  each  county  as  well  as  in  the  State 
capital;  it  met  the  same  fate  as  its  predecessor.^23  "The 
Commissioner  of  Labor  then,  in  hopes  of  being  able  to  show 
by  actual  results  the  practical  utility  of  such  a  measure,  en- 
deavored to  enlist  the  assistance  of  the  different  county  audit- 
ors of  the  State  in  the  establishment  in  a  small  way  of  such  a 
bureau  as  contemplated  by  the  Chesire-Dowell  Bill.  A  ma- 
jority of  the  county  auditors  in  the  State  agreed  to  do  all  in 
their  power  to  help  in  the  work,  and  the  newspapers  almost 
without  exception  gave  the  scheme  generous  support.  But  for 
some  cause  it  did  not  meet  with  success.  The  Bureau  was 
maintained  for  five  months,  and  during  that  time,  although 
applications  for  situations  were  numerous,  the  Commissioner 
was  unable  to  secure  work  for  a  single  applicant  and  aban- 
doned the  attempt.^2* 

This  want  of  success  was  attributed  by  Commissioner  Sov- 
ereign's successor  in  office  to  the  wide-spread  industrial  de- 
pression during  the  summer  of  1894,  when  the  experiment  was 
tried,  and  also  to  distrust  of  the  scheme  on  the  part  of  em- 
ployers. Another  reason  for  failure  is,  no  doubt,  to  be  found 
in  the  method  used — the  correspondence  or  ''mail  order "^^^ 
system.  This  plan  has  nowhere  met  with  much  success,  except 
perhaps  in  placing  farm  hands.  Few  Iowa  farmers  were  look- 
ing for  hands  in  1894. 

After  the  failure  of  1894  the  agitation  for  public  employ- 
ment offices  in  Iowa  remained  in  abeyance  for  about  a  decade, 
when  it  was  revived  by  the  Federation  of  Labor.  By  that 
time  public  employment  offices  were  in  successful  operation 
in  fifteen  States,  so  that  the  theoretic  argument  in  their  favor 
was  abundantly  supported  by  experience. 


190         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  bill  which  was  presented  to  the  General  Assembly  in 
1906  was  very  carefully  drawn,  and  was  pronounced  a  model 
by  Dr.  J.  E.  Conner  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor, 
who  was  then  engaged  in  a  special  investigation  of  employ- 
ment bureaus.  But  the  State  Manufacturers'  Association  and 
the  Citizens'  Industrial  Alliance,  professing  to  see  in  the  pro- 
posed measure  a  scheme  to  further  the  interests  of  organized 
labor,  exerted  themselves  against  it.^^^  Their  efforts  were 
successful;  the  bill  was  beaten  on  the  floor  of  the  House  and 
never  came  to  a  vote  in  the  Senate.^^'^ 

After  the  failure  of  all  efforts  to  establish  public  employ- 
ment oflBces,  the  friends  of  the  movement  turned  their  atten- 
tion to  the  public  regulation  of  private  agencies.  Two  acts 
were  carried  at  the  last  session  of  the  General  Assembly 
(1907),  one  of  which  authorized  incorporated  cities  and  towns 
to  license  and  regulate  all  keepers  of  intelligence  or  employ- 
ment offices,  bureaus,  and  agencies  ;^^^  while  the  other  act  lim- 
its the  fee  of  the  agency  to  one  dollar  in  case  of  failure  to  se- 
cure employment,  requires  a  written  contract,  whereof  one 
copy  must  be  delivered  to  the  applicant  for  employment,  for- 
bids the  division  of  fees  between  the  bureau  and  the  employer, 
authorizes  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statis- 
tics to  examine  the  books,  records,  and  papers  of  any  employ- 
ment agency  at  any  time,  and  makes  it  his  duty  to  investigate 
all  complaints  against  such  agencies  or  bureaus.^^^ 

Pursuant  to  the  power  granted  them  by  the  legislature 
four  of  the  larger  cities  in  the  State  have  adopted  ordinances 
regulating  employment  agencies,  charging  a  license  fee  rang- 
ing from  ten  to  fifty  dollars  per  annum,  and  requiring  a  bond 
to  be  filed  with  the  city  clerk.^^*^  These  cities  report  about  a 
dozen  agencies  in  operation  in  1908.  How  many  exist  in  un- 
regulated cities  it  is  impossible  to  say. 

employees'  right  to  vote 

Lq  1892  it  was  enacted  that  any  person  entitled  to  vote  at 
a  general  election  may  absent  himself  from  any  employment 


MISCELLANEOUS  LABOR  LEGISLATION  191 

in  which  he  is  engaged  for  two  hours  upon  the  day  of  such 
election,  and  shall  not  be  subject  on  account  of  such  absence 
to  any  penalty  or  deduction  from  his  usual  wages.  At  the 
same  time  it  was  made  a  misdemeanor  to  attempt  to  influence 
the  vote  of  an  employee  by  offering  any  reward  or  by  threat- 
ening discharge  or  by  otherwise  intimidating  him.^^^  Similar 
laws  exist  in  many  States. 

HOURS  OF  LABOR  ON  PUBLIC  ROADS 

There  is  no  general  law  governing  the  hours  of  labor  on 
public  works  in  this  State.  An  act  was  passed  in  1884  declar- 
ing that  nine  hours  shall  constitute  a  day's  work  on  the  public 
roads  in  payment  of  the  poll  tax.^^^  This  was  reduced  to  eight 
hours  in  1897.^33 

ARBITRATION 

The  first  report  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Iowa  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  (1885)  recommended  the  establishment  of 
a  State  Board  of  Arbitration  for  the  settlement  of  industrial 
disputes.^^*  Numerous  arbitration  bills  were  introduced  at 
the  next  session  of  the  General  Assembly.^^^  But  all  measures 
looking  toward  the  creation  of  a  permanent  board  under  the 
direction  of  the  State  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  were  re- 
jected by  the  legislature.  Instead,  there  was  enacted  a  pro- 
vision for  tribunals  of  voluntary  arbitration  in  each  county. 

These  tribunals  were  to  be  appointed  by  the  District 
Courts  upon  the  application  of  not  less  than  twenty  workmen 
and  of  a  firm  or  firms  employing  at  least  twenty  men.  Each 
tribunal  was  to  continue  in  existence  for  one  year  from  the 
date  of  the  license  creating  it,  and  was  to  consist  of  not  less 
than  two  workmen  and  two  employers  who  were  to  choose  an 
umpire  by  mutual  consent.  The  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal 
was  to  extend  to  any  dispute  between  employers  and  work- 
men in  any  mechanical,  manufacturing,  or  mining  industry, 
or  business,  who  should  have  petitioned  for  the  tribunal,  or 
been  represented  in  the  petition  therefor,  or  who  might  sub- 
mit their  disputes  in  writing  for  decision.    The  umpire  was  to 


192         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

be  called  upon  to  act  in  case  the  tribunal  should  fail  to  agree 
after  full  discussion  in  three  meetings.  The  decision  of  the 
umpire  was  final  upon  the  matters  submitted ;  if  for  a  specific 
sum  of  money,  the  award  must  be  filed  with  the  District 
Court,  and  judgment  might  then  be  entered  thereon.^^^ 

This  law  was  not  ''found  of  any  practical  utility.  The 
proceeding  provided  for  was  entirely  voluntary,  and  the  de- 
termination when  reached  was  not  enf orcible.  "^^"^  The  stat- 
ute was  accordingly  omitted  by  the  commission  which  framed 
the  Code  of  1897,  and  no  other  legislation  has  been  enacted. 


THE   IOWA  BUREAU   OF   LABOR  STATISTICS 

The  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  was  the  fourteenth 
in  order  of  establishment  in  the  United  States.^^^  The  act 
creating  the  Bureau  was  passed  in  1884  at  the  instance  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor,^^^  and  not  without  opposition  in  both 
branches  of  the  legislature.^*^  The  act  received  the  Governor's 
approval  April  3,  1884.^*^  Eleven  days  later  the  first  Com- 
missioner entered  upon  his  duties.^*^ 

During  the  first  ten  years  of  the  Bureau's  existence  its 
personnel  consisted  only  of  the  Commissioner,  appointed  by 
the  Governor  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive Council  for  the  term  of  two  years.  An  appropriation 
for  clerical  assistance  was  made  in  1894.^*^  The  oflSce  of 
Deputy  Commissioner  was  created  two  years  later.^**  A 
Factory  Inspector  and  an  office  clerk  were  added  to  the  Bu- 
reau's force  in  1904.^*^ 

The  Bureau  has  never  been  very  liberally  supported.  The 
Commissioner's  salary  was  fixed  at  fifteen  hundred  dollars 
per  annum  in  the  law  of  1884,  and  remained  unchanged  for 
twenty-three  years  when  it  was  raised  to  eighteen  hundred.^*^ 
The  Deputy  Commissioner  received  a  thousand  dollars  from 
1896  to  1904,  twelve  hundred  from  1904  to  1907,  and  fifteen 
hundred  since  the  latter  date.  The  Factory  Inspector  receives 
a  hundred  dollars  a  month  and  the  clerk  sixty-five.  The  entire 
expenses  of  the  Bureau  other  than  salaries  of  officers  (except, 
of  course,  for  the  printing  and  distribution  of  its  reports) 
are  limited  to  fifteen  hundred  dollars  a  year.^*"^  Thus  the 
cost  of  maintaining  the  Bureau  does  not  exceed  seven  thou- 
sand dollars  a  year — much  less  than  the  expenditure  for  sim- 
ilar bureaus  in  other  States  having  no  greater  wealth  and 
population  than  Iowa. 


194         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  law  of  1884  defined  the  scope  of  the  Bureau's  work 
as  follows: 

The  duties  of  said  commissioner  shall  be  to  collect,  assort,  system- 
atize and  present  in  biennial  reports  ....  statistical  details  re- 
lating to  all  departments  of  labor  in  the  state,  especially  in  its  rela- 
tions to  the  commercial,  social,  educational  and  sanitary  conditions 
of  the  laboring  classes,  and  to  the  permanent  prosperity  of  the  me- 
chanical, manufacturing  and  productive  industries  of  the  state,  and 
shall  as  fully  as  practicable  collect  such  information  and  reliable  re- 
ports from  each  county  in  the  state  [ ;]  the  amount  and  condition  of 
the  mechanical  and  manufacturing  interests,  the  value  and  location 
of  the  various  manufacturing  and  coal  productions  of  the  state,  also 
sites  offering  natural  or  acquired  advantages  for  the  profitable  loca- 
tion and  operation  of  different  branches  of  industry;  he  shall  by 
correspondence  with  interested  parties  in  other  parts  of  the  United 
States  impart  to  them  such  information  as  may  tend  to  induce  the  lo- 
cation of  mechanical  and  producing  plants  within  the  state,  together 
with  such  other  information  as  shall  tend  to  increase  the  produc- 
tions, and  consequent  employment  of  producers;  and  in  said  bien- 
nial report  he  shall  give  a  statement  of  the  business  of  the  bureau 
since  the  last  regular  report,  and  shaU  compile  and  publish  therein 
such  information  as  may  be  considered  of  value  to  the  industrial  in- 
terests of  the  state,  the  number  of  laborers  and  mechanics  employed, 
the  number  of  apprentices  in  each  trade,  with  the  nativity  of  such 
laborers,  mechanics  [']  and  apprentices'  wages  earned,  the  savings 
from  the  same,  with  age  and  sex  of  laborers  employed,  the  number 
and  character  of  accidents,  the  sanitary  condition  of  institutions 
where  labor  is  employed,  the  restrictions  if  any  which  are  put  upon 
apprentices  when  indentured,  the  proportion  of  married  laborers  and 
mechanics  who  live  in  rented  houses,  with  the  average  annual  rental 
and  the  value  of  property  owned  by  laborers  and  mechanics;  and  he 
shall  include  in  such  report  what  progress  has  been  made  with 
schools  now  in  operation  for  the  instruction  of  students  in  the  me- 
chanic arts  and  what  systems  have  been  found  most  practical,  with 
details  thereof. 

* '  The  means  of  escape  from,  and  the  protection  of  life  and 
health  in  factories,  the  employment  of  children,  the  number 
of  hours  of  labor  exacted  from  them  and  from  women,"  were 


THE  IOWA  BUREAU  OP  LABOR  STATISTICS         195 

added  to  the  subjects  to  be  included  within  the  Bureau's  re- 
ports in  1902.^*^  In  addition  to  these  purely  statistical  duties, 
the  Commissioner  and  his  assistants  were  charged  with  the 
work  of  factory  inspection  and  the  enforcement  of  the  factory 
act  in  1902,^*^  with  the  enforcement  of  the  fire  escape  law  in 
1904,85<^  and  of  the  child  labor  act  in  1906,^^^  and  with  the 
supervision  of  private  emplo^nnent  agencies  in  1907.^^^  The 
Bureau  has  thus  become  much  more  than  a  mere  gatherer  of 
labor  statistics.  Its  scope  would  be  more  accurately  expressed 
by  the  title  ''Bureau  of  Labor". 

Three  methods  of  collecting  statistical  information  have 
been  employed  by  the  Bureau:  (1)  correspondence,  (2)  inves- 
tigation by  field  agents,  and  (3)  the  taking  of  testimony. 
These  methods  will  be  discussed  in  the  order  mentioned. 

The  great  weakness  of  the  correspondence  method  of  col- 
lecting statistics  lies  in  the  difficulty  of  securing  complete  or 
even  representative  returns.  This  is  particularly  true  as  re- 
gards the  wage-earning  classes. ^^^  The  class  of  laborers  whose 
names  are  easiest  to  ascertain  and  who  are  most  likely  to 
respond  to  requests  for  information  are  labor  unionists.  A 
majority  of  the  individual  reports  of  wage-earners,  accord- 
ingly, are  derived  from  this  source.  These  reports  are,  there- 
fore, representative  of  a  selected  class  rather  than  of  the 
general  level  of  wage-workers.  Even  so,  however,  the  wage- 
earners'  reports  upon  wages,  hours  of  labor,  and  conditions 
of  work  in  various  occupations  and  at  different  places  through- 
out the  State  are  highly  instructive. 

Much  of  the  information  which  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Sta- 
tistics is  required  by  law  to  collect  can  only  be  secured  from 
employers  of  labor.  But  the  Bureau,  during  the  first  twelve 
years  of  its  existence,  was  wholly  without  authority  to  compel 
anyone  to  make  reports.  Many  large  employers  ignored  the 
schedules  sent  them  to  be  filled  out ;  a  few  even  denied  officers 
of  the  Bureau  access  to  their  books,  refused  them  admission 
to  their  plants,  and  sought  to  prevent  their  employees  from 
furnishing  them  any  information.^^*     To  remedy  this   and 


196         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

other  defects  in  the  law  of  1884,  extensive  amendments  were 
adopted  in  1896,  upon  the  earnest  recommendation  of  the 
Conamissioner,^^^  enlarging  the  powers  and  increasing  the 
support  of  the  Bureau.^^^ 

The  amended  law  makes  it  the  duty  of  every  owner,  op- 
erator, or  manager  of  every  factory,  mill,  workshop,  mine, 
store,  business  house,  public  or  private  work,  or  any  other 
establishment  where  five  or  more  wage  earners  are  employed 
to  make  to  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  upon  the  blanks 
furnished  by  the  Bureau,  such  reports  as  the  Bureau  may 
require  for  the  purpose  of  compiling  such  labor  statistics  as 
are  contemplated  by  the  laws.  Eeports  must  be  made  within 
sixty  days  after  the  receipt  of  the  blanks,  and  the  person 
reporting  must  certify  to  the  correctness  of  the  same.  Neglect 
or  refusal  to  make  reports  is  a  misdemeanor  punishable  by 
fine  or  imprisonment.  The  names  of  the  individuals,  firms, 
or  corporations  furnishing  information  cannot  be  made  pub- 
lic by  the  Commissioner. 

There  was  great  opposition  in  the  legislature  to  the  com- 
pulsory feature  of  the  act  of  1896,  and  also  to  the  authoriza- 
tion by  the  same  act  of  the  inspection  of  factories  and  places 
of  employment. ^^"^  One  of  the  Senators,  in  explaining  his  neg- 
ative vote,  called  the  act  ^*a  radical  departure  from  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  republican  form  of  government,  un-American 
and  inquisitorial,  unjust  to  manufacturers  and  bringing  no 
advantage  whatever  to  the  laborers,  but  on  the  contrary  will 
work  to  their  injury,  and  to  the  mutual  injury  of  both  em- 
ployer and  employe  by  tending  to  beget  and  intensify  antag- 
onism between  them,  producing  strife  and  distrust  when  mu- 
tual interests  demand  concord  and  confidence.  "^^^  The  bill 
had  been  once  rejected  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of  thirty-two 
to  thirty-four,  but  was  carried  four  days  later  by  the  decisive 
vote  of  sixty-eight  to  thirteen.^^^ 

What  possible  harm  can  be  done  to  any  legitimate  industry 
by  the  collection  of  statistics  has  never  been  explained. 
Neither  has  any  system  yet  been  devised  whereby  such  statis- 


THE  IOWA  BUREAU  OP  LABOR  STATISTICS         197 

tics  can  he  collected  without  the  power  of  compelling  replies 
to  inquiries. 

To  render  the  Commissioner's  inquiries  as  innocuous  as 
possible,  a  form  of  blank  was  incorporated  in  the  act  of  1896, 
and  this  is  still  retained  in  the  statutes,^^^  though  the  Com- 
missioner is  now  required  to  collect  several  items  of  informa- 
tion not  included  within  this  blank.  Inasmuch,  however,  as 
the  language  of  the  statute  implies  a  measure  of  discretion, 
the  Attorney  General  has  held  that  the  blank  form  incorpor- 
ated in  the  law  was  not  intended  to  be  rigid,  but  that  the  Com- 
missioner may  add  all  questions  which  he  may  deem  necessary 
to  gain  such  information  as  he  is  required  to  collect.^^^  In 
accordance  with  this  opinion,  the  Commissioner  adopted  the 
blank  given  below  for  the  compilation  of  his  report  of  1903. 
A  somewhat  different  form  was  used  for  the  report  of  1906. 
A  comparison  of  the  schedule  for  1903  with  the  statutory 
blank,  which  is  likewise  reproduced,  will  show  that  the  former 
is  much  more  comprehensive. 

GENERAL  INQUIRIES,   1903^^2 
TO  ALL  EMPLOYERS  OF  FIVE   OR  MORE  PERSONS   IN  IOWA 

Answer  such  questions  only  as  pertain  to  your  business  and  es- 
tablishment. 

1.     Name  of  firm  or  corporation 

2.  Located  at County.  3.  Kind  of  business  tran- 
sacted      4.     Number   of   employes    during   last 

fiscal  year No.  adult  males No.  adult  fe- 
males    No.  children  under  sixteen  years 

5.     Number  of  hours  worked  per  day  by  men By  women 

By  children 6.      Total   amount   of   wages 

paid  adult  males  during  the  last  fiscal  year  $ 7.    Total 

amount  of  wages  paid  adult  females  during  last  fiscal  year  $ 

8.     Total  amount  paid  children  under  sixteen  during  last  fiscal  year, 

$ 9.     Any  actual  increase  or  reduction  in  the  rate  of 

wages  during  last  fiscal  year,  $ ;  If  so,  what  amount  or 

percent  of  increase  ? Or  what  amount  or  percent  of 

reduction  ? How  many  employes  were  affected  ? 

10.     Cause  of  increase  or  reduction 11.    Any  in- 

14 


198         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

crease  or  reduction  of  business  during  last  fiscal  year  ? 

Increase  ?    $ Decrease  ?    $ 12.    Number 

of  weeks  during  last  fiscal  year  business  was  run  on  full  time  with 

full  force  ? 13.    Number  of  weeks  during  last  fiscal 

year  business  was  run  on  short  time  with  reduced  force  1 

14.    Number  of  weeks  during  last  fiscal  year  business  was  suspended? 

15.     How  many  strikes  or  lockouts  since  December 

31,  1900? 

MEANS  OF  ENTRANCE  AND  EXITS  TO  BUILDINGS 

16.    Number  of  stories  in  building? Brick  or  frame? 

17.    Number  of  stairways,  inside  ? 

Outside  ? 18,     Are  fire  escapes  provided,  according 

to  law,  enacted  in  1902 ? 19.    Number  of  elevators? 

How  protected  ? 20.     Number  of  hoists  ? 

How  protected? 21.  Are  employes  locked  in  dur- 
ing working  hours  ? 22.  Are  doors  hinged  to  swing  in- 
ward or  outward  ? 

VENTILATION   AND   SANITATION. 

23.    How  are  work  rooms  and  buildings  ventilated  ? 

24.    Are  suitable  water  or  earth  closets  provided  ? 

25.  Description  of  closets Condition  as  to  cleanli- 
ness  26.    Are  closets  for  females  separate  and 

apart  from  the  males? Are  they  properly  screened? 

SAFEGUARDS  TO  MACHINERY  AND  ACCIDENTS 

27.     Are  loose  pulleys  and  belt  shifters  used  ? 28.    Are 

vats,  pans,  saws,  cogs,  set  screws,  fly  wheels  and  all  geared  machinery 

properly  guarded? 29.     Are  emery  wheels,   tumbling 

barrels  and  dust  producing  machinery  provided  with  suction  fans  or 

dust  blowers  ? 30.     If  steam  boilers  are  used,  by  whom 

are  they  inspected  ? How  often  ? 

31.     Are  children  under  sixteen  years  of  age  operating  or  assisting 

to  operate  dangerous  machinery  of  any  kind? 32.    Are 

employes  allowed  to  clean  machinery  while  in  motion  ? 

33.  Are  cautionary  instructions  posted  or  verbally  given  to  em- 
ployes operating  machinery? 34.     Number  of  accidents 

since  December  31,  1900 Nature  of  accidents 

Number  killed Number  injured 


THE  IOWA  BUREAU  OF  LABOR  STATISTICS         199 

MANUFACTURES 

35.     Total  capital  invested,  including  lands,  buildings,  tools  and 

machinery,  $ 36.     Total  cost  of  production  for  last 

fiscal  year,  including  raw  materials,  freights,  rents,  taxes,  miscellane- 
ous expenses  and  salaries  of  officials,  but   do   not  include  wages, 

$ 37.     Total  value  of  product  for  last  fiscal  year, 

$ 

STATUTORY  BLANK 

Name  of  firmi  or  corporation Number  of 

hands  employed  during  year  ending  December  31, ; 

males ;   females ;   apprentices 

Total  amount  of  wages  paid  during  year  ending  December  31, ... . 

$ Total  amount  of  wages  paid  previous  year 

$ Any  general  increase  or  reduction  of  wages  during  the 

past  year?    If  so,  what  percent  of  increase  or  reduction? 

cause  of  increase  or  reduction Any  increase  or  de- 
crease of  business  during  past  year.    $ What  means 

are  provided  for  the  escape  of  employes  in  case  of  fire  ? 

What  measures  axe  taken  to  prevent  accidents  to  employes  from  ma- 
chinery ? How  are  buildings  ventilated  ? 

Are  separate  water  closets  and  wash  rooms  provided  for  the  different 

sexes  ? Number  of  weeks  during  past  year  business  was 

run  on  full  time  with  full  force,  Number  of  weeks  dur- 
ing past  year  business  was  run  on  short  time  or  with  reduced  force, 
Number  of  weeks  during  past  year  business  was  sus- 
pended  Number  of  strikes  during  year  ending  De- 
cember 31, ;  number  involved, ;  alledged  cause 

;  result,  ;  how  many  days  did  strike  con- 
tinue, and  what  was  loss  of  wages  in  consequence  thereof  ? 

Was  any  property  destroyed  and  if  so  its  value  ? 


Many  facts  affecting  the  welfare  of  laborers  can  he  ascer- 
tained only  by  investigation  on  the  spot.  This  is  true  as  re- 
gards sanitation  and  the  protection  of  life  and  limb  in  places 
of  employment,  child  labor,  the  housing  of  the  working  classes, 
and  numerous  other  subjects  which  will  readily  suggest  them- 
selves to  the  reader.    Many  other  items  of  information  can  be 


200         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

more  cheaply  and  satisfactorily  secured  through  field  work 
than  by  correspondence. ^^^  Nevertheless,  no  provision  what- 
ever was  made  for  traveling  expenses  of  officers  of  the  Bureau 
until  the  amendatory  act  of  1896,  and  the  total  of  such  ex- 
penditures was  then  limited  to  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum. 
We  already  have  seen  that  the  Bureau  is  now  restricted  to 
fifteen  hundred  dollars  a  year  for  all  contingent  expenses. 
With  so  small  a  fund  at  its  disposal  the  Bureau  has  never 
been  able  to  undertake  any  extensive  investigation.  The  facts 
included  under  the  heading  "Factory  Inspection",  are  ascer- 
tained wholly  by  personal  investigation ;  other  statistical  mat- 
ter in  the  Bureau's  reports  is  collected  chiefly  by  corre- 
spondence. 

The  act  creating  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  author- 
ized the  Commissioner  to  issue  subpoenas  for  witnesses  and 
examine  them  under  oath  and  enforce  their  attendance  to  the 
same  extent  and  in  the  same  manner  as  a  justice  of  the  peace. 
The  amendatory  act  of  1896  prescribes  a  penalty  not  exceed- 
ing fifty  dollars  and  costs  of  prosecution  for  refusal  to  attend 
or  testify  at  the  time  and  place  named  in  the  subpoena,  excuses 
a  witness  from  attendance  outside  the  county  in  which  he  re- 
sides, and  limits  the  expense  for  witnesses  to  one  hundred 
dollars  annually.  The  power  of  taking  testimony  is  used  by 
officers  of  the  Bureau  where  necessary  in  conducting  special 
inquiries. 

The  law  of  1884  requires  the  Commissioner  of  the  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics  to  compile  a  biennial  report  of  not  more 
than  six  hundred  printed  pages  octavo.  Twelve  such  reports, 
ranging  in  bulk  from  one  hundred  seven  to  six  hundred  eight 
pages,  have  been  issued  up  to  the  present  time  (1908).^®'*  The 
number  of  copies  printed  has  varied  from  time  to  time,  but  is 
now  fixed  at  thirty-five  hundred.^^^  The  demand  for  the  re- 
ports has  frequently  exceeded  the  supply. 

Table  I  below  is  a  list  of  thirty-two  topics  treated  in  the 
several  reports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  with 
the  number  of  pages  devoted  to  each  subject.    The  list  is  not 


THE  IOWA  BUREAU  OF  LABOR  STATISTICS         201 

intended  to  be  exhaustive,  but  only  to  indicate  the  principal 
contents  of  the  reports.  It  will  be  observed  that  while  the 
entire  range  of  topics  is  considerable,  many  of  the  subjects 
are  considered  in  but  one  or  two  reports.  Only  seven  of  the 
thirty-two  appear  in  half  or  more  of  the  reports. 

Nine  of  the  Commissioners'  reports  contain  statistical  and 
textual  matter  based  upon  the  individual  returns  of  wage- 
earners.  Statistics  of  railway  employees  are  likewise  given  in 
nine  reports ;  these  are  in  part  based  upon  individual  returns, 
and  in  part  taken  from  the  reports  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Com- 
missioners. Employers'  statistical  reports  have  been  com- 
piled only  since  the  passage  of  the  amendatory  act  of  1896. 
The  tables  of  classified  wages  in  four  biennial  reports  are 
based  upon  the  payrolls  of  employers.  Thus  the  data  for  the 
most  comprehensive  and  valuable  statistics  now  published  by 
the  Bureau  are  obtained  from  employers.  Unfortunately  the 
law  requires  reports  to  be  made  only  by  employers  of  five 
or  more  persons.  Thus  the  Bureau's  returns  are  necessarily 
incomplete,  though  they  may  be  fairly  representative,^^^ 

The  usefulness  of  the  Bureau's  statistical  reports  could 
be  much  increased  by  a  few  additions  to  the  schedules  of  in- 
quiry and  by  the  substitution  of  siunmaries  for  certain  details. 
No  distinction  is  at  present  made  between  the  sexes  of  chil- 
dren under  sixteen,  or  between  youths  of  either  sex  and  adults. 
The  employers '  reports  are  published  by  counties ;  there  should 
be,  in  addition,  a  summary  for  the  entire  State  by  industries. 
The  reports  of  factory  inspection  give  details  as  to  conditions 
observed  and  recommendations  made  for  each  establishment 
inspected.  This  information  would  be  much  more  accessible 
if  compressed  into  a  well  planned  summary.  The  same  re- 
mark applies  to  the  Bureau's  statistics  of  accidents.  Thus 
the  table  of  accidents  in  the  twelfth  biennial  report  (1906)  is 
spread  over  fifteen  pages  and  gives  full  details  for  each  acci- 
dent. The  student  must  wade  through  these  fifteen  pages  and 
make  his  own  computations  if  he  would  arrive  at  any  intel- 
ligible result.    An  analytical  table  giving  the  age  and  sex  of 


202         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

persons  injured,  and  the  causes,  character  and  extent  of  in- 
juries, would  occupy  two  or  three  pages  at  most  and  would 
be  far  more  informing. 

A  number  of  articles  in  the  Bureau's  reports  are  the  result 
of  special  investigation  by  the  Commissioner.  Among  the 
most  valuable  of  these  are  the  discussions  of  contract  convict 
labor  and  of  coal  screens  and  the  truck  system  in  the  report  of 
1885,  the  article  on  private  employment  offices  in  the  report 
of  1891,  and  the  records  of  joint  trade  agreements  in  the 
reports  of  1903  and  1905.  In  some  of  the  earlier  reports  topics 
which  hardly  fell  within  the  appropriate  sphere  of  the  Bu- 
reau's work  were  treated  at  great  length.  Examples  are  the 
seventy  pages  given  to  a  discussion  of  prohibition  in  the  re- 
port of  1889,  and  the  one  hundred  sixty  pages  devoted  to 
agricultural  depression  in  the  report  of  1891. 

TABLE  I SUBJECTS  TREATED  IN  THE  EEPOETS  OF  THE  IOWA  BUREAU 

OF  LABOR  STATISTICS 
SUBJECTS  NUMBER    OF    PAGES  IN    EACH    REPORT 

1885  1887  1889  1891  1893  1895  1897  1899  K-01  1903  1905  1906 

Entire       number       of 

pages    in    report...    398    416    413    279    349    195    177    107    598    608    460    272 

Wage  earners'  indi- 
vidual   reports 52    152    129  24    160  27      24      26      22 

Statistics    of    railroad 

employees     9      26        5  9      14      34      23      16      15 

Remarks  and  sugges- 
tions of  w  a  g  e  - 
earners     25      23      24  12  18      14      13 

Labor       organizations 

in    Iowa 11  3        3  34      69      60 

Strikes    and    lockouts 

in    Iowa     16      62        4  4  2  76 

Manual    training    and 

technical    education     38  4        2  10        7      31 

Employers'    statistical 

reports     40      46    114      68  45 

Farm  labor  and  agri- 
cultural  conditions.        7        6      22    166      12 

New      industries      for 

Iowa     10  18      66      28      30 

Immigration     5  3        3  12      51 

Factory  inspection ...  38      50      80      37 

Labor  laws  of  Iowa..  28        7  13  25        2 

Classified    wages 31  40      44      69 

Child    labor 13        4  2        5 

Co-operation  and  prof- 
it   sharing 9  2        2      22 


THE  IOWA  BUREAU  OF  LABOR  STATISTICS         203 

Employment    offices. . .  23  17 

Prohibition    2        4      70  6 

Manufactures  of  Iowa       7      15        4 

Joint  trade  agreements  113      84 

School    teachers 22  45 

Communistic    societies  13  18 

Convict    labor 22        2 

Cost    of    living 10        7 

Mining    industry 6  10 

Railway  benefit  asso- 
ciation      82 

Directory  of  Iowa  em- 
ployees      45 

Pearl  button  industry  26 

Coal  screens  and  the 
truck    system 18 

Chinese    labor 18 

Length  of  working  day 

in  the  United  States  16 

Canning    industry ....  9 

Arbitration    7 

The  reports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  are 
issued  only  every  second  year,  so  that,  allowing  for  the  delays 
of  the  State  Printer,  an  interval  of  three  years  may  elapse 
between  the  gathering  of  facts  and  their  publication.  Much 
of  the  information  in  the  reports  has  thus  lost  its  timeliness 
before  it  reaches  the  public.  To  the  laboring  man,  especially, 
the  value  of  industrial  statistics  very  largely  depends  upon 
their  recentness.  He  is  far  more  interested  in  current  than 
in  past  wages  and  hours  of  work.  For  these  reasons  the  Com- 
missioners several  times  have  asked  for  legislative  authority 
to  publish  a  labor  bulletin  in  which  could  be  given  timely  dis- 
cussions of  industrial  questions,  the  results  of  special  inves- 
tigations, and  statistical  and  other  information  of  current 
interest.  Such  bulletins  are  issued  by  Massachusetts,  New 
York,  and  other  States  as  well  as  by  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Labor.  But  the  legislature  of  Iowa,  with  short-sighted 
economy,  has  steadily  refused  to  make  any  provision  for  a 
similar  publication. 

Table  II  below  shows  eighteen  of  the  most  important 
recommendations  for  new  legislation  made  by  the  Bureau, 
whereof  eleven  have  been  adopted  in  whole  or  in  part,  while 
seven  have  been  rejected  or  ignored  by  the  legislature.  It  is 
by  no  means  meant  to  imply  that  the  Bureau's  recommendation 


204         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

was  the  sole,  or  even  the  chief  influence  in  securing  such  legis- 
lation, but  merely  to  indicate  the  active  support  given  by  the 
Bureau  to  some  of  the  most  important  labor  laws  enacted  or 
proposed  since  its  establishment.  Officers  of  the  Bureau  were 
especially  influential  in  securing  the  factory,  fire-escape,  and 
child  labor  laws. 

TABLE   II EECOMMENDATIONS   TO   THE   LEGISLATUKE   BY  THE   IOWA 

COMMISSION  OF  LABOR 
RECOMMENDATIONS  IN    WHAT    REPORTS  MADE  LAW    ENACTED 

Increase  support  of  Bureau 1885,  1887,  1891,  1893,  1902,    1891,  1904,  1907 

Enact    screen    law 1885  1888 

Enact   truck   law 1885,  1887  1888 

Abolish      contract      system      in 

prisons     1885,  1887 

Establish  State  Board  of  Arbi- 
tration       1885  1886  867 

Enact  bi-weekly  wage   law 1887  1894 

Establish  labor  day 1889 

Establish  free  employment  bu- 
reau     ' 1891,  1893,  1905 

Revise        law      governing      the 

Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics...  1895  1896 

Require     guards     on     dangerous 

machinery     1897,  1899,  1901  1902 

Provide  for  State  inspection   of 

steam  boilers 1897,  1899,  1901,  1903,  1905 

Require  employers'  reports  with- 
in 20  days   1899 

Enact  factory  law 1901  1902 

Enact  fire  escape  law 1901,  1903  1902,  1904 

Provide  for  factory  inspection..  1901,  1903  1902,  1904 

Enact  child  labor  law 1901,  1903,  1905,  1906  1906 

Require    report    of    accidents    to 

Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics...  1903,  1905,  1906 

Provide    penalty    for    removing 

guards  from  machinery 1905,  1906 

Five  Commissioners  have  been  appointed  since  the  creation 
of  the  Bureau  in  1884,  the  average  term  being  nearly  five 
years.  All  of  the  appointees  have  been  taken  from  the  ranks 
of  organized  labor.  It  follows  that  the  officers  of  the  Bureau 
without  exception  have  been  in  sympathy  with  the  aims  and 
ideals  of  working  people.  Notwithstanding  this  fact  the  Bu- 
reau has  never  been  guilty  of  offensive  partisanship  in  the 
strife  between  employer  and  employed. 

In  conclusion  it  may  be  said  without  hesitation  that  the 
Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  has  justified  its  existence. 


THE  IOWA  BUKEAU  OF  LABOR  STATISTICS         205 

Early  prejudice  has  largely  been  overcome.  The  Bureau  now 
enjoys  the  confidence  and  support  of  organized  labor  and 
receives  a  considerable  measure  of  cooperation  from  employ- 
ers. The  scope  of  its  work  has  been  greatly  extended  within 
the  past  few  years,  and  the  extent  and  value  of  its  statistical 
reports  have  correspondingly  increased.  The  work  of  the  Bu- 
reau still  is  needlessly  hampered  and  its  usefulness  impaired 
by  lack  of  proper  financial  support. 


V 


AN  APPENDIX 
EECENT  LABOR  LEGISLATION 


AN  APPENDIX 


EECENT    LABOR    LEGISLATION 


The  Thirty- third  General  Assembly  which  met  in  1909, 
since  the  foregoing  pages  were  written,  greatly  strengthened 
the  child  labor  law,  markedly  improved  the  statutes  affecting 
employers '  liability,  and  made  minor  changes  in  various  other 
departments  of  labor  legislation. 

THE  CHILD  LABOR  LAW 

By  the  legislation  of  1909  the  period  of  compulsory  school 
attendance  was  raised  to  twenty-four  weeks  for  all  school  dis- 
tricts and  the  board  of  school  directors  in  any  city  of  the  first 
or  second  class  (15,000  and  2,000  inhabitants,  respectively)  was 
authorized  to  require  attendance  for  the  entire  time  that  the 
schools  are  in  session.^^^  There  is  little  doubt  that  the  school 
boards,  in  most  of  the  larger  cities  at  least,  will  make  use  of 
this  authority.  Vigilant  truant  officers  will  thus  have  it  in 
their  power  to  prevent  the  worst  evils  of  child  labor. 

Still  more  important  is  the  amendment  which  empowers 
any  officer  charged  with  the  enforcement  of  the  child  labor  law 
' '  to  demand  of  employers,  proof  of  age  of  any  child  employed 
in  their  establishment;  such  proof  shall  be  an  authenticated 
birth  record,  and  if  there  is  no  such  record,  then  a  baptismal 
record  fully  attested  ....  and  if  there  is  no  such  rec- 
ord, a  school  record  that  will  establish  the  age  of  the  child, 
attested  by  a  superintendent,  principal,  or  teacher;  where  no 
such  proof  is  obtainable,  a  parent's  affidavit,  together  with 
affidavits  made  by  two  disinterested  persons  ....  es- 
tablishing date  of  birth  may  be  accepted,  and  if  no  such  proof 
is  furnished,  such  child  shall  forthwith  be  dismissed  from 
his  employment. ' '  ^^^ 

The  absence  of  such  a  provision  was  one  of  the  chief  de- 


210  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

fects  of  the  legislation  of  1906.  Evasion  of  a  child  labor  law- 
is  always  easy  where  the  enforcing  authority  is  required  to 
produce  positive  proof  of  the  age  of  each  suspected  child.  On 
the  other  hand,  when  the  burden  of  proof  is  put  upon  employ- 
ers they  are  much  more  careful  about  employing  children  of 
doubtful  age.  As  the  law  now  stands,  violations  will  be  far 
more  infrequent  and  detection  and  conviction  much  less  diffi- 
cult. 

employees'  liability  law 

The  Assumption  of  Eisk  Act  of  1907  was  repealed  and  the 
following  statute  enacted  in  its  stead : 

In  all  cases  where  the  property,  works,  machinery,  or  appliances 
of  an  employer  are  defective  or  out  of  repair,  and  where  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  employer  from  the  character  of  the  place,  work,  machinery  or 
appliances  to  furnish  reasonably  safe  machinery,  appliances  or  place 
to  work,  the  employe  shall  not  be  deemed  to  have  assumed  the  risk, 
by  continuing  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work,  growing  out  of  any 
defect  as  aforesaid,  of  which  the  employe  may  have  had  knowledge 
when  the  employer  had  knowledge  of  such  defect,  except  when  in  the 
usual  and  ordinary  course  of  his  employment  it  is  the  duty  of  such 
employe  to  make  the  repairs,  or  remedy  the  defects.  Nor  shall  the 
employe  under  such  conditions  be  deemed  to  have  waived  the  negli- 
gence, if  any,  unless  the  danger  be  imminent  and  to  such  extent  that 
a  reasonably  prudent  person  would  not  have  continued  in  the  pros- 
ecution of  the  work ;  but  this  statute  shall  not  be  construed  so  as  to 
include  such  risks  as  are  incident  to  the  employment.  And  no 
contract  which  restricts  liability  hereunder  shall  be  legal  or  bind- 

ing870 

This  act  is  evidently  more  favorable  to  the  employee  than 
that  of  1907.  (1)  It  does  away  wdth  the  requirement  of  a 
written  notice  of  defects  which,  in  many  cases,  might  have 
resulted  in  the  discharge  of  the  complaining  employee.  (2) 
It  removes  all  doubt  as  to  the  effect  of  a  contractual  waiver 
of  the  employer's  liability  under  the  statute.  (3)  As  the  act 
stands  it  probably  would  not  be  necessary  to  show  that  the 
employer  had  actual  knowledge  of  a  given  defect  if,  in  the 


APPENDIX  211 

exercise  of  reasonable  care,  he,  or  his  vice-principal,  would 
have  known  of  it.  The  statute  has  not  been  judicially  con- 
strued, so  that  its  precise  effects  cannot  be  determined.  It 
clearly  supersedes  the  Common  Law  rules  as  to  protest  and 
promise  to  repair ;  but  apparently  it  does  not  wholly  abrogate 
the  doctrine  of  the  assumption  of  extraordinary  risks.  The 
language  of  the  act  does  not  embrace  unsafe  methods  of  work, 
nor  does  it  cover  defects  in  appliances,  etc.,  of  which  the  em- 
ployer has  not  actual  or  constructive  knowledge.  None  the 
less  the  act  of  1909  does  away  with  the  harshest  features  of 
the  Common  Law  doctrine.  The  assumption  of  the  ordinary 
risks  of  the  employment  is,  of  course,  not  affected  by  the 
statute. 

Equally  important  with  the  new  Assumption  of  Risk  Act 
is  the  following  amendment  to  the  Eailway  Liability  Law : 

That  in  all  actions  hereafter  brought  against  any  such  corpora- 
tion [corporation  operating  a  railway]  to  recover  damages  for  the 
personal  injury  or  death  of  any  employe  under  or  by  virtue  of  the 
provisions  of  this  section,  [Code  of  1897,  Section  2071,  the  railway 
liability  statute]  the  fact  that  the  employe  may  have  been  guilty  of 
contributory  negligence  shall  not  bar  a  recovery,  but  the  damages 
shall  be  diminished  by  the  jury  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
negligence  attributable  to  such  employe;  provided,  that  no  such 
employe  who  may  be  injured  or  killed  shall  be  held  to  have  been 
guilty  of  contributory  negligence  in  any  case  where  the  violation 
by  such  common  carrier  or  corporation  of  any  statute  enacted  for 
the  safety  of  employes  contributed  to  the  injury  or  death  of  such 
employe ;  nor  shall  it  be  any  defense  to  such  action  that  the  employe 
who  was  injured  or  killed  assumed  the  risks  of  his  employment.^''^^ 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  amendment  establishes  the  rule  of 
comparative  negligence  as  to  cases  within  the  statute,  abolishes 
contributory  negligence  altogether  as  a  defense  to  suits  based 
on  violations  of  the  safety  laws  by  the  railway  companies,  and 
abrogates  the  Common  Law  doctrine  of  assumption  of  risk  to 
the  same  extent  that  the  earlier  statute  abrogates  the  fellow 
servant  doctrine.    It  is,  of  course,  too  early  to  speak  of  the 


212  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

amended  act,  since  it  has  not  yet  been  construed  by  the  courts. 
Undoubtedly,  however,  the  amendment  applies  to  the  same 
classes  of  injuries  as  the  earlier  acts  —  that  is,  to  injuries 
caused  by  "the  use  and  operation  of  a  railway",  and  sustained 
by  persons  exposed,  by  reason  of  their  employment,  to  the 
peculiar  hazards  arising  from  such  use  and  operation.  Next 
to  the  fellow-servant  doctrine,  contributory  negligence  and 
assumption  of  risk  are  the  principal  defenses  in  employers' 
liability  cases.  The  amendment  of  1909,  therefore,  immensely 
enlarges  the  remedies  afforded  by  the  statute  to  railway  em- 
ployees. 

MINOR  LEGISLATION 

As  was  forecasted  (above  p.  26)  the  cooperage  concern 
secured  an  act  authorizing  the  State  Board  of  Control  to 
contract  for  the  employment  of  not  more  than  fifty  inmates 
of  the  State  Eeformatory  at  Anamosa  in  the  making  of  butter 
tubs,  the  contract  to  expire  not  later  than  January  1,  1915.^'^^ 
The  contract  thus  authorized  was  promptly  entered  into  by 
the  Board  of  Control.  In  view  of  conclusions  already  reached 
the  extension  of  the  cooperage  contract  can  but  be  regarded 
as  a  backward  step. 

An  amendment  to  the  Railway  Safety  Appliance  Law  pro- 
vides that  all  locomotives  used  in  switching  or  yard  service, 
except  at  stations  where  regular  switch  engines  are  not  em- 
ployed, shall  be  equipped  in  both  front  and  rear,  with  head- 
light, foot-board,  and  grab  rail.^'^^  The  switchman's  calling  is 
an  extra-hazardous  one  at  best,  but  its  perils  are  much  in- 
creased by  the  use  of  ordinary  road  locomotives  in  switching 
service  —  a  practice  which  was  formerly  common  and  which 
the  above  law  was  intended  to  minimize. 

Additional  provision  for  the  comfort  of  street  car  motor- 
men  was  made  by  an  act  which  requires  all  motor  street  cars, 
except  trailers,  used  for  the  transportation  of  passengers  and 
not  already  required  by  law  to  carry  enclosed  vestibules  to  be 
equipped  with  transparent  shields.^'^* 

Lastly,  a  second  factory  inspector  was  added  to  the  inade- 


APPENDIX  213 

quate  force  of  the  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics.^'^^  Three  men 
now  devote  their  entire  time  to  the  field  work  of  the  Bureau. 
The  force  is  still  too  small,  but  when  it  is  called  to  mind  that 
factory  inspection  in  Iowa  began  only  ten  years  ago  its  growth 
will  appear  an  augury  of  better  things  to  come. 

The  action  of  the  Thirty-third  General  Assembly  empha- 
sizes a  striking  and  grateful  feature  of  the  recent  social  his- 
tory of  Iowa  —  the  growing  volume  and  increasingly  human- 
itarian character  of  labor  legislation. 


15 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES 


i 


NOTES  AND  EEFERENCES 
INTRODUCTION 

^  The  writer  has  been  unable  to  find  any  printed  records  of  the 
Knights  of  Labor  in  Iowa.  For  the  statements  in  the  text  he  is 
indebted  to  Mr.  Edwin  Perry,  of  Oskaloosa,  formerly  a  State  officer 
of  the  Knights  and  now  (1907)  Secretary  of  District  Thirteen,  Unit- 
ed Mine  Workers  of  America. 

2  A  brief  history  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor  is  contained 
in  the  Tribune  (Cedar  Rapids)  for  June  5,  1908.  The  annual  pro- 
ceedings have  been  printed  from  the  time  of  their  first  organization. 
An  almost  complete  set  of  the  Proceedings  is  found  in  the  library 
of  The  State  Historical  Society  of  Iowa. 

3  For  an  example  see  the  history  of  the  Temple  Amendment, 
page  181  of  this  volume. 

CHAPTER  II 

*  Territorial  Laws  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  331. 

5  Territorial  Laws  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  727. 

6  Territorial  Laws  of  Michigan,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  1189. 
■^  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  V,  p.  10. 

8  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  V,  p.  235. 

9  Laws  of  Iowa,  1838-1839,  p.  327. 

10  Laws  of  Iowa,  1839-1840,  p.  78. 

11  Revised  Statutes  of  Iowa,  1842-1843,  p.  380. 

12  Code  of  1851,  pp.  154-159. 

13  Code  of  1851,  Section  981. 
1*  Code  of  1851,  Section  982. 

15  Code  of  1851,  Sections  988-995. 


218         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

16  Code  of  1851,  Sections  1005-1007. 

17  Code  of  1851,  Section  1009. 

18  Code  of  1851,  Section  1010. 

19  Laws  of  Iowa,  1856-1857,  p.  377. 

20  Laws  of  Iowa,  1858,  p.  46. 

21  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1846. 

22  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1871. 

23  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1847. 

24  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1870. 

25  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1854. 

26  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1872. 

27ia«;s  of  Iowa,  1862,  p.  127;  1870,  p.  180;  (Public),  1872,  p. 
13;  (Public),  1874,  p.  33. 

28  Lam  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  36. 

29  Laws  of  Iowa,  1876,  p.  84. 

30  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  185. 

31  Breneman  vs.  Harvey,  70  Iowa  479. 
Loring  vs.  Small,  50  Iowa  271. 
Whiting  vs.  Story  County,  54  Iowa  81. 

32  Code  of  1897,  Sections  3102-3104. 

33  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  72. 

34  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  31. 

35  Thompson  vs.  Spencer,  95  Iowa  265.  For  the  existing  law  see 
the  Code  of  1897,  pp.  1097-1115;  also  Traxler's  A  Treatise  on  The 
Mechanics'  Liens  of  the  State  of  Iowa,  Minneapolis,  1901. 

36  Code  of  1897,  Section  3089. 

3'^  Traxler's  A  Treatise  on  The  Mechanics'  Liens  of  the  State  of 
Iowa,  p.  44. 

38  Brown  vs.  Wyman,  56  Iowa  452. 

39  Kiene  vs.  Hodge,  90  Iowa  212. 

40  Coenen  vs.  Staub,  74  Iowa  32. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  219 

*^  Hoppes  vs.  Bale,  105  Iowa  648. 

42  Cotes  &  Davis  vs.  Shorey,  8  Iowa  416. 

Neilson  vs.  Iowa  Eastern  Railway  Company,  51  Iowa  184. 
Chase  vs.  Garver  Coal  &  Mining  Company,  90  Iowa  25. 

43  Jones  vs.  Swan  and  Company,  21  Iowa  181;    Stockwell  vs. 
Carpenter,  27  Iowa  119. 

**  Neilson  vs.  Iowa  Eastern  Railway  Company,  51  Iowa  184. 

45  Code  of  1897,  Section  3089 ;  Mornan  vs.  Carroll,  35  Iowa  22. 

46  Sandval  vs.  Ford,  55  Iowa  461. 

4^  Trailer's  A  Treatise  on  The  Mechanics'  Liens  of  the  State  of 
Iowa,  p.  59. 

48Traxler's  A  Treatise  on  The  Mechanics  Liens  of  the  State  of 
Iowa,  p.  58-59. 

49  Mornan  vs.  Carroll,  35  Iowa  22. 

50  Code  of  1897,  Section  3092. 

51  Code  of  1897,  Section  3095. 

52  Code  of  1897,  Section  3447,  sub-division  4 ;  Johnson  vs.  Otto, 
105  Iowa  605. 

53  According  to  Justice  Given,  in  Reynolds  vs.  Black,  91  Iowa  1. 

54  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  73 ;  Code  of  1897,  Sections  4019-4020. 

55  Reynolds  vs.  Black,  91  Iowa  1. 

56  Code  of  1851,  Section  1901 ;  Code  of  1873,  Section  3074 ;  Code 
of  1897,  Section  4011. 

57  Code  of  1851,  Section  1901 ;  Code  of  1873,  Section  3075 ;  Code 
of  1897,  Section  4013. 

^^  House  File,  No.  51,  30th  General  Assembly   (1904). 

59  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1904,  p.  272. 

60  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  117. 

61  Laws  of  lowu,  1894,  p.  97 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  4018. 

^"^  House  File,  No.  92,  30th  General  Assembly   (1904). 

63  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1904,  pp.  129,  291, 
292,  332,  333. 


220         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

^^  House  File,  No.  317,  30th  General  Assembly   (1904). 

^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1904,  pp.  429,  517, 
666,  668,  669 ;  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1904,  pp.  657,  672,  717,  967. 

66  Council  Bluffs  Nonpareil,  May  8-12,  1905. 

6'^  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1906,  p. 
137;  Statement  of  Burt  T.  Jackson  of  Cedar  Rapids,  President  of 
the  Iowa  State  Retail  Merchants'  Association. 

68  House  File,  No.  183,  31st  General  Assembly,  1906. 

69  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  280,  548, 
652 ;  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1906,  pp.  630,  641,  1055-1056. 

■70  House  Files,  Nos.  76,  82,  132 ;  Senate  File,  No.  86,  32nd  Gen- 
eral  Assembly   (1907). 

"^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1907,  p.  906. 

"^^  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1907,  p.  1220. 

''^  House  File,  No.  175,  31st  General  Assembly  (1906). 

"^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  260,  465, 
486,  1006 ;  Journal  of  the  Se7iate,  1906,  pp.  428,  618,  887. 

■^5  Vote  in  the  House,  66  to  2 ;  in  the  Senate,  27  to  0. 

76  Latvs  of  Iowa,  1906,  p.  108. 

'^'^  The  methods  employed  by  the  loan  sharks  are  well  illustrated 

by  the  following  incident:—     L M ,  a  fireman  on  the 

Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway,  running  out  of  Sioux 
City,  fell  behind  on  account  of  the  sickness  and  death  of  a  child. 
Seeing  a  "money  to  loan"  advertisement  in  a  street  car  he  called 
on  the  advertiser,  and  gave  him  a  note  for  $35,  with  interest  at  8% 
for  six  weeks,  secured  by  a  chattel  mortgage  on  household  furniture 
worth  three  or  four  hundred  dollars.  He  actually  received  but  $24, 
$11  being  deducted  as  cormnission  and  charges.  By  successive  re- 
newals, without  any  additional  advance  by  the  lender,  the  debt  grew 
to  $108  in  eight  months'  time.  The  mortgage  was  then  foreclosed 
and  the  household  goods  bought  in  for  some  fifty  dollars  by  an  as- 
sociate of  the  loan  company.  An  attempt  was  then  made  to  attach 
the  fireman's  unpaid  wages,  whereupon  he  was  discharged  by  the 
railway  company. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  221 

The  writer  has  been  told  of  many  similar  incidents  in  various 
Iowa  cities. 

"^^Code  of  1851,  Section  1490;  Code  of  1873,  Section  2240;  Code 
of  1897,  Section  3191. 

79  Code  of  1873,  Section  2211 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  3162. 

CHAPTER  III 

80  Territorial  Laws  of  Michigan,  Vol.  I,  p.  469. 

8^  Territorial  Laws  of  Michigan,  Vol.  II,  p.  384. 

82  Laws  of  Iowa,  1838-1839,  p.  365. 

83  Laws  of  Iowa,  1840-1841,  p.  81. 

8*  See  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary  in  the  Journal 
of  the  Council,  1845,  p.  190. 

85  Laws  of  Iowa,  1845-1846,  p.  18. 

86  Laws  of  Iowa,  1848-1849,  p.  82. 

8'^  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1854-1855,  Appendix,  pp.  23-25. 
^^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1865,  pp.  11-16. 
^^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1869,  pp.  18-20. 
^^Laws  of  Iowa  (Private),  1874,  p.  31. 
9^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1875,  Appendix. 

92  loiva  Documents,  1878,  Vol.  II,  No.  15,  pp.  57-63. 

93  Laws  of  Iowa,  1876,  p.  82. 

^'^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1877,  Appendix. 

95  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1879,  p.  24. 

96  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1881,  p.  12. 

9'^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1881,  p.  9. 

^^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1883,  p.  11. 

^^  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1889,  p.  8. 

^00  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1895,  pp.  7-8. 

101  These  contracts  have  not  been  published,  but  are  on  file  in 
the  office  of  the  State  Board  of  Control  at  Des  Moines. 


222         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

1*^2  Report  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary,  1895,  pp.  7-8. 

103  Beport  of  the  Warden  of  the  Femtentiary,  1901,  p.  5. 

i***  Statement  of  Mr.  A.  L.  Urick,  President  of  the  Iowa  Federa- 
tion of  Labor. 

105  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  96. 

106  Records  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Penitentiary  at  Fort 
Madison. 

107  Correspondence  in  the  office  of  the  State  Board  of  Control. 
i08Law;5  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  49. 

109  Contracts  on  file  in  the  office  of  the  State  Board  of  Control. 

110  Records  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Reformatory. 

111  LoAvs  of  Iowa,  1876,  p.  32 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  5707. 

112  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  62. 

11^  Statement  of  Mr.  A.  L.  Urick,  President  of  the  Iowa  Federa- 
tion of  Labor. 

11*  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  96. 

115  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  193. 

11^  Records  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Reformatory  at  Ana- 
mosa. 

11'^  Records  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  Penitentiary. 

lis  Beport  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary  at  Anamosa,  1893, 
p.  9. 

^^^  Beport  of  the  Warden  of  the  Penitentiary  at  Anamosa,  1899, 
p.  42.  The  industries  proposed  were  binder-twine,  hollow-ware,  and 
manufactures  for  State  institutions.— See  Iowa  Documents,  1900, 
Vol.  VI,  pp.  131-148. 

120  Senate  File,  No.  96,  and  House  File,  No.  160,  32nd  General  As- 
sembly (1907). 

121  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1907,  p. 
137;  1908,  pp.  87,  127. 

CHAPTER  IV 

122  Yov  the  early  history  of  the  Dubuque  lead  mines,  see  House 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  223 

Executive  Documents,  26th  Congress,  1st  session,  "Vol.  VI  (Owen's 
Report) ;  Senate  Executive  Documents,  30th  Congress,  1st  session. 
No.  5730;  H.  R.  Schoolcraft's  Narrative  Journal  of  Travels;  also 
History  of  Dubuque  County,  and  the  loiva  Geological  Survey,  Vol. 
VI,  pp.  14-18 ;  Vol.  X,  pp.  480-489 ;  John^  Hopkins  University  Studies, 
Series  2,  No.  VII,  pp.  347-350. 

123  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  II,  pp.  38,  521-522. 

124  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  II,  p.  38. 

125  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  II,  p.  522. 
i26/(nt;a  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  II,  p.  523. 

127  Census  Year. 

128  Year  ending  June  30.  From  Reports  of  Iowa  State  Mine  In- 
spectors. 

'^^^  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  16. 

^^^  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  13. 

131  See  pp.  8,  63. 

^^2 Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  53. 

^^^Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  22. 

13*  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  196. 

135  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  23 ;  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  In- 
spector, 1883,  pp.  78-90;  loiva  State  Register,  July  26,  August  15-16, 
1883;  personal  letter  to  writer  from  Edwin  Perry,  now  (1907)  Secre- 
tary-Treasurer of  District  Thirteen,  United  Mine  Workers  of  America, 
and  formerly  State  Secretary  of  the  Knights  of  Labor  and  member 
of  their  legislative  committee.  Accounts  should  be  found  in  the 
Oskaloosa  Messenger  of  July  10-12,  1883,  but  this  paper  the  writer 
has  not  been  able  to  find. 

136  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  23. 

137  Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  53. 

138  iaw;s  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  22. 

139  Polk,  Mahaska,  Monroe,  Wapello,  Appanoose,  and  perhaps 
others.  See  Minute  Boohs  of  the  County  Board  of  Supervisors, 
1873-1880. 


224         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

140  Laws  of  loiva,  1880,  p.  196. 

141  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  23. 

142  JKepor^  0/  >Sf^af e  Mine  Inspector,  1885,  p.  63. 

143  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  161. 

144  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  74. 

145  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  62. 

146  The  number  of  mines  in  each  district  in  1906  was  as  follows : 

District  Number  1    149 

District  Number  2    65 

District  Number  3    95 

Entire    State    309 

See  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1906,  p.  6. 

147  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  62. 

148  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  129 ;  Code  of  Iowa,  Supplement  of  1907; 
Section  2483. 

149  Latvs  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  197. 

150  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1882,  p.  169. 

151  Laws  of  Iowa,  1906,  p.  5. 

152  Laws  of  Iowa,  1906,  pp.  2-3. 

153  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  pp.  197-8. 

154  Code  of  1897,  Section  2485. 
^^^Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  53. 
'^^^Laws  of  loiva  (Public),  1874,  p.  22. 

157  Laws  of  loiva,  1880,  p.  198. 

158  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector,  1882-1883,  p.  93. 

159  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  25. 

160  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  79. 

161  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  198. 

162  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  71. 

163  Code  of  1897,  Section  2487. 
^^^Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  24. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  225 

165  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  198. 

166  Code  of  1897,  Section  2489. 

^^'^  Laws  of  loiva  (Public),  1874,  p.  24. 

168  Statement  of  an  ex-County  Mine  Inspector. 

169  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  199. 
"0  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  26. 
171  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  27. 

1"^^  Crabell  vs.  Wapello  Coal  Company,  68  Iowa  751. 

i'^3  The  record  for  the  biennial  period  1904-1905  is  as  follows : 

Killed   Injured 

Caught  by  cage  3  10 

Struck  by  material  falling  down  shaft   2  2 

Hurt  by  falling  into  shaft  1  0 

Total  number  killed  or  injured  in  hoisting  ways. .  6  12 

17*  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  199. 

175  Code  of  1897,  Section  2489. 

176  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  61. 

177  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  pp.  199-200 ;  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  pp.  27- 
28 ;  Code  of  1897,  Sections  2489  and  2491. 

178  Code  of  1897,  Section  2489. 

179  Corson  vs.  Coal  Hill  Coal  Company,  101  Iowa  224 ;  Taylor  vs. 
Star  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  40 ;  Cushman  vs.  Carbondale  Fuel  Com- 
pany, 116  Iowa  618;  Wahlquist  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  &  Mining 
Company,  116  Iowa  720,  There  are  many  other  cases  holding  to 
same  effect. 

isoLawJS  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  52. 

181  Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  22. 

182  Statements  of  former  County  Mine  Inspectors  and  other  vet- 
eran Tomev^.—Eeport  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector,  1883,  p.  49; 
1885,  pp.  30-35. 

183  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  198. 

184  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector,  1883,  pp.  93-94. 

185  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  26. 


226         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

186  Code  of  1897,  Section  2488. 

18^  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1906,  pp.  16-17. 

188  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1883,  p.  48. 

189  Compiled  from  details  by  counties  in  the  Report  of  Iowa  State 
Mine  Inspectors,  1906.  It  will  be  observed  that  the  total  number 
of  mines  (314)  differs  from  that  (309)  given  on  pp.  34,  215.  The 
discrepancy  is  between  the  details  by  counties  and  the  summary  in 
the  Inspector's 

190  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  38. 

191  Division  of  the  main  air  .current  at  the  bottom  of  the  down- 
east, 

192  At  the  mouth  of  abandoned  rooms  and  entries. 

193  Reports  of  the  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1905,  p.  19 ;  1906, 
pp.  16-17;  also  details  by  counties. 

194  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1895,  pp.  42,  76. 

195  Code  of  1897,  Section  2493. 

196  Laws  of  Iowa,  1896,  p.  94. 

197  Laws  of  Iowa,  1898,  p.  38. 

'^^^  Reports  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1891,  pp.  129-130; 
1893,  pp.  29,  60;  1895,  p.  35. 

199  Report  of  the  Commission  on  Explosions  in  the  Coal  Mines 
of  Iowa.     This  Report  is  printed  only  in  pamphlet  form. 

200  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  63. 

^^'^  House  File,  No.  36,  31st  General  Assembly  (1906);  House 
File,  No.  212,  32nd  General  Assembly  (1907).— See  House  Journal, 
1906  and  1907,  passim. 

202  Tjjg  j)gg  Moines  Agreement  for  1908-1909  is  published  in  a 
pamphlet  of  thirty-seven  pages, 

^^^  Proceedings  of  Tenth  Annual  Convention  (1907)  District 
Thirteen,  United  Mine  Workers  of  America,  p.  8 ;  Proceedings  of  the 
Eleventh  Convention  (1908),  p.  13. 

204  Beard's  Mine  Gases  and  Explosions,  pp.  192-194. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  227 

^^^  Reports  of  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1891,  pp.  129-130;  1901, 
pp.  32-33. 

206  Tjjg  italics  are  the  writer's. 

207  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  129. 

^^^  Senate  File,  No.  81,  32nd  General  Assembly  (1907) ;  Journals 
of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  passim. 

209  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1891,  p.  92. 

210  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  61. 

211  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors,  1901,  pp.  52-53,  71-72. 

212  La4vs  of  Iowa,  1874,  p.  24. 

213  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  199. 

214  Code  of  1897,  Section  2491. 

215  Latt;s  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  23. 

216  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  199. 

217  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  80. 

218  Code  of  1897,  Section  2492. 

219  Report  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector,  1885,  pp.  30-32. 

220  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  79. 

221  Code  of  1897,  Section  2488. 

222  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  28. 

223  Code  of  1897,  Section  2491. 
224Law;s  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  53. 
^^^Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  24. 

226  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  27. 

227  Code  of  1897,  Section  2492. 

228  Mosgrove  vs.  Zimbleman  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  169. 

229  iaw's  of  loiva  (Public),  1874,  p.  23. 

230  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  201. 

231  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  25 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  2486. 

232  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  61. 


228         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

233  Loit's  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  24. 

234  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  197. 

235  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  24. 

236  Code  of  1897,  Section  2482. 

237  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  197 ;  Code  of  1897,  Sections  2482  and 
516. 

238  Many  specimen  verdicts  are  printed  in  the  Reports  of  the 
Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors. 

239  Years  ending  June  30th,     Table  compiled  from  Reports  of 
loiva  State  Mine  Inspectors. 

^'^^  Reports  of  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspectors  and  Bulletin  No.  333 
of  the  United  States  Geological  Survey. 

^'^^  Bulletin  No.   333   of   the  United   States   Geological   Survey, 
passim. 

242  Compiled  from  detailed  returns  in  Reports  of  State  Mine  In- 
spectors. 

243  See  p.  8. 

244  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  72. 

^'^^  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector's  Reports,  1889,  pp.  144-146. 

246  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  200. 

247  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  76 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  2490. 

248  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  77. 

249  See,  for  examples,  the  Report  of  the  State  Mine  Inspector  for 
1883,  p.  76  ff. 

250  Tjjg  italics  are  the  writer's. 

251  "Slack"  was  struck  from  the  list  of  impurities  in  1900.— 
Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  61. 

252  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  77 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  2490. 

253  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1888,  p.  844. 

254  Journal  of  the  House,  1888,  pp.  905-906 ;  Journal  of  the  Senate, 
1888,  p.  845. 

255  Code  of  1897,  Section  2490. 


NOTES  AND  EEFERENCES  229 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector,  1883,  pp.  85,  91. 

257  A  typical  example  of  these  checks  reads  as  follows : 

[Front] 
This  is  not  intended  to  be  used  as  money.     "Western  Supply 
Co.     Pay  the   bearer   on   demand  in   Merchandise  Five   Cents. 
Ottumwa,  Iowa,  March  31st,  1883.    No.  G  5012. 
Whitebreast  Company. 

T.  C.  Maine,  Sec'y. 
[Back] 
Accepted.     Redeemable  in  Merchandise  on  demand.  5  cents. 

D.  A.  Telfer,  Sec. 
See  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lator  Statistics,  1885,  pp. 
168-170,  217-225 ;  1887,  p.  188 ;  1889,  pp.  403-404. 

258  See  Senate  Files,  Nos.  5,  17,  332,  and  House  Files,  Nos.  20, 
176,  186,  for  the  year  1886. 

259  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  78. 

^^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1888,  p.  663;  cf. 
Journal  of  the  Senate,  1888,  p.  847. 

261  Code  of  1897,  Section  2490. 

262  There  is  some  difference  of  opinion  upon  this  point.  The 
statement  in  the  text  is  supported  by  the  testimony  of  State  Mine 
Inspectors  and  officials  of  the  United  Mine  "Workers. 

^^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1888,  pp.  658-663. 

264  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1888,  p.  847. 

265  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1887,  pp.  406- 
408. 

266  The  italics  are  the  writer's. 

267  Laws  of  Iowa,  1894,  p.  95. 

268  Laws  of  Iowa,  1900,  p.  61. 

269  See  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1894,  p.  699. 

270  Mitchell  vs.  Burwell,  110  Iowa  10. 

271  por  an  account  of  the  gypsum  deposits  of  Iowa  and  their 
development  up  to  1901,  see  Keyes's  The  Gypsum  Deposits  of  Iowa 
in  the  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  257-304;  and  Wilder 's 

16 


230         HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

The  Geology  of  Webster  County  in  the  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol. 
XII,  pp.  99-127,  138-167. 

^■^2  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  260. 

273  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XII,  p.  145. 

2*^4  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  299. 

275  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XVII,  p.  21. 

276  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XII,  p.  140. 

277  7ow;a  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  Ill  (1893),  p.  300. 

278  Iowa  Geological  Survey,  Vol.  XII,  p.  146. 

279  Used  to  obtain  the  top  rock.  But  where  the  overlying  land  is 
unusually  valuable  this  rock  is  left  standing. 

280  See  the  Report  of  Commissioner  of  Labor  Brigham  and  State 
Mine  Inspector  Sweeney  in  the  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1906,  pp.  429- 
433.  The  statements  in  the  text  relating  to  present  conditions  at  the 
gypsum  mines  are  based  on  their  report  except  as  otherwise  noted. 

281  Statements  to  writer  by  employees  in  the  mines. 

282  Senate  File,  No.  193,  30th  General  Assembly. 

283  The  vote  stood:  yeas,  44,  nays,  iionQ.— Journal  of  the  Senate, 
1904,  pp.  255-256. 

^^'^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1904,  pp.  534,  621, 
661,  830-831,  841-842;  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of 
Labor,  1904,  p.  195. 

^^^  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1904,  pp.  1075,  1186;  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Representatives,  1904,  pp.  1187,  1220. 

286  Statements  to  writer  by  ex-members  of  the  United  Gypsum 
Workers. 

287  The  report  is  printed  in  the  Journals  of  the  House  and  Senate, 
1906. 

288  House  File,  No.  371,  32nd  General  Assembly. 

CHAPTER  V 

289  Laws  of  Iowa,  1878,  p.  67. 

290  See  Table  V,  p.  90. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  231 

291  See  p.  89. 

292  Compiled  by  the  writer  from  detailed  returns  of  the  several 
railway  companies  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Com- 
missioners. 

293* 'Getting  on  and  off  moving  engines  and  cars,"  1878-1888; 
*'at  stations",  1889-1892. 

294  Not  separately  reported,  1889-1892. 

295  Separately  reported  by  Commissioners,  1889-1892 ;  computed 
by  the  writer  for  earlier  years.  For  these  years,  at  least,  some  ac- 
cidents were  probably  referred  to  "other  causes"  which  were  in 
fact  due  to  the  operation  of  trains  and  vice  versa. 

296  Includes  engineers,  firemen,  conductors  and  brakemen. 

297  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1884,  p.  39. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1885,  pp.  92,  93. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1887,  p.  63. 

^^^  See  the  excellent  articles  in  the  annual  Reports  of  the  Iowa 
Railroad  Commissioners  for  1884,  pp.  39-41;  1885,  pp.  92-93;  1886, 
pp.  46-48;  1887,  pp.  62-70;  1889,  pp.  46-47.  These  articles  are  all 
by  Commissioner  Coffin  of  Fort  Dodge. 

301  See  above,  note  300. 

302  See  House  Files,  Nos.  226,  300,  305,  388,  and  Senate  Files, 
Nos.  365,  396  of  the  21st  General  Assembly  (1886) ;  also  House  Files, 
Nos.  296,  432,  521,  22nd  General  Assembly  (1888). 

303  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1890,  pp.  327-328. 
Journal  of  the  Senate,  1890,  pp.  491-492;  the  Iowa  State  Register, 

March  2,  1890;  and  the  Annals  of  Iowa,  Third  Series,  Vol.  V,  pp. 
561-582.    The  article  in  the  Annals  is  by  Mr.  L.  S.  Coffin. 

304  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  31. 

305  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1889,  p.  47  d. 

306  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  34. 

307  Section  five  of  the  law  of  1890  requires  all  railroad  companies 
to  report  annually  to  the  State  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners 
the  number  of  locomotives  and  cars  used  in  Iowa,  the  number 
equipped  with  automatic  power  brakes  and  with  automatic  safety 


232  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

couplers,  and  the  kinds  of  brakes  and  couplers  used,  with  the  num- 
ber of  each  kind. 

308  The  average  number  of  employees  from  1878  to  1889  was 
22,240;  from  1901  to  1906,  the  number  was  40,267.-  See  Table  V. 

309  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1884,  p.  39 ;  1906, 
p.  6.  The  percentages  were  computed  by  the  writer.  For  an  ex- 
planation of  certain  discrepancies  between  the  table  and  the  Com- 
missioners' figures  see  notes  to  Table  V  in  this  volume. 

310  These  figures  are  taken  from  the  detailed  returns  by  railways. 

311  See  President  Harrison's  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1889, 
in  Richardson's  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  Vol.  IX,  p.  51. 
During  the  twelve  months  ending  June  30,  1891,  casualties  to  train- 
men in  Iowa  were  reported  as  follows : 

Killed  Injured 

Coupling   and  uncoupling  cars 12  193 

Falling  from  trains 19  56 

Overhead  obstructions    4  15 

Other  causes   10  98 

Casualties  to  trainmen  from  coupling  and  uncoupling  cars  and 
from  overhead  obstructions  would  fall  exclusively,  and  those 
due  to  falling  from  trains  almost  exclusively,  upon  brakemen  and 
conductors,  chiefly,  of  course,  upon  the  former.  These  casualties 
total  35  deaths  and  264  injuries.  There  were,  besides,  two  brake- 
men  killed  and  ten  brakemen  or  conductors  injured  from  miscel- 
laneous causes.  Adding  a  fair  proportion  of  accidents  due  to  de- 
railments, collisions  and  getting  on  and  off  trains  in  motion,  we  have 
not  less  than  forty  fatalities  and  two  hundred  and  eighty  injuries 
suffered  by  these  two  classes  of  employees  in  a  single  year.  Now, 
there  were  employed  upon  all  the  railways  of  the  State  in  1891, 
2085  brakemen  and  993  conductors,  an  aggregate  of  3078.  The  an- 
nual loss  per  thousand  would  thus  be,  for  both  classes,  13  killed  and 
90  injured.  For  brakemen  alone  these  rates  would  be  considerably 
higher.  It  is  notable  that  the  Fourth  Iowa  Cavalry,  one  of  the 
famous  "fighting  regiments"  of  the  Civil  War,  which  took  part  in 
sixty-two  engagements  and  captured  nearly  three  thousand  prisoners, 
had  but  52  men  killed  and  160  wounded  in  action  during  four  years 
of  service,  an  annual  rate  of  13  killed  and  40  wounded.    The  average 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  233 

strength  of  this  regiment  was  somewhat  more  than  one  thousand. — 
Scott's  The  Story  of  a  Cavalry  Regiment,  pp.  575-576. 

It  would  appear  that  "braking"  on  an  Iowa  railroad  in  1891 
was  rather  more  perilous  to  life  and  limb  than  the  cavalry  service 
during  the  Civil  War. 

312  In  1878,  488  of  the  545  passenger  cars  and  364  of  the  976 
locomotives  used  in  Iowa  were  thus  eqaipped.— Report  of  the  Iowa 
Railroad  Commissioners,  1878,  pp.  96-97. 

313  There  was  an  important  series  of  such  experiments  at  Bur- 
lington, Iowa,  in  the  summer  of  1886,  and  the  spring  of  1887.— i?e- 
ports  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1886,  p.  49;  1887,  p.  64. 

314  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Com/missioners,  1885,  pp.  94-96. 
For  other  articles  by  Mr,  Coffin  see  the  Reports  for  1886,  1887,  and 
1889. 

315  See  Table  III,  p.  84  of  this  volume. 

316  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  31. 

317  Changed  to  1895  by  law  of  1892.— Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  35. 

318  United  States  Statutes  at  Large,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  531. 

319  The  casualties  to  brakemen  are  not  separately  reported  by  the 
Railroad  Commissioners.  Assuming,  however,  that  all  accidents  from 
falling  from  trains  are  suffered  by  brakemen  (an  assumption  not 
true  to  fact,  but  perhaps  as  near  the  truth  in  one  period  as  another), 
we  get  the  following  results  for  three  year  periods  near  the  begin- 
ning and  the  close,  respectively,  of  the  re-equipment  process: 

1890-1892    1904-1906 

Average  number  of  brakemen 2113  2724 

All  deaths  due  to  falling  from  trains  for 

three  years    68  52 

Annual  rate  per  thousand  brakemen 10.8  6 

All  injuries  due  to  falling  from  trains 198  422 

Annual  rate  per  thousand  brakemen 31  52 

Per  cent  of  cars  equipped  with  train  brakes    13  86 

This  tabic  again  indicates  a  lower  fatality,  but  a  higher  rate  of 
injury  for  the  later  period. 

320  Connecticut,    Kentucky,    Michigan,    New    Hampshire,    Ohio, 


234  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont  in  1904-  Tenth  Special  Report  of  United 
States  Bureau  of  Labor. 

321  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  State  Federation  of  Labor, 
1907,  p.  131. 

322  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  112. 

323  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1906,  pp.  201- 
203. 

324  See  remarks  of  railway  employees  in  the  Reports  of  the  Iowa 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1885-1906. 

325  The  italics  are  the  writer 's. 

326  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  106. 

327  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1907,  p.  416. 

328  Laws  of  Iowa,  1878,  p.  71. 

329  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  113. 

330  Report  of  the  loiva  Board  of  Railroad  Commissioners,  1906, 
pp.  6,  7.  Years  ending  June  30.  Rates  per  thousand  were  computed 
by  the  writer. 

331  Given  as  29  in  the  Commissioners'  Reports.  But  in  the 
Report  of  1884,  p.  39,  it  is  stated  that  there  were  17  persons  killed 
coupling  cars  in  1878.  The  detailed  returns  for  the  latter  year  show 
14  employees  killed  by  falling  from  trains,  3  caught  in  frogs,  2  by 
collisions,  1  by  derailment  and  3  in  other  ways— total  40. 

332  Given  as  103  in  the  Commissioners'  Reports.  Figures  in  text 
were  taken  from  detailed  returns. 

333  Qiven  as  37  in  Commissioners '  Reports.  Figures  in  text  were 
taken  from  detailed  returns. 

334  In  Commissioners '  Reports,  67  and  146,  respectively. 

335  In  Commissioner's  table,  35  and  442,  respectively.  But  the 
returns  of  the  Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Quincy,  the  St.  Louis,  Keo- 
kuk and  Northwestern,  and  the  Chicago,  Burlington,  and  Kansas 
City  railways  are  omitted,  and  those  of  the  Rock  Island  are  incor- 
rectly summarized. 

336  Report  of  the  Iowa  Railroad  Commissioners,  1892,  p.  17. 

337  State  vs.  Haskins,  59  Northwestern  Reporter,  545. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  235 

338  The  italics  are  the  writer 's. 

339  Code  of  1897,  Section  768. 

340  Circular  letter  of  the  Legislative  Committee  of  the  Amalga- 
mated Association  of  Street  and  Electric  Railway  Employees,  Feb. 
9,  1907. 

^'^'^Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  29;  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Sec- 
tion 768. 

^^^  Senate  File,  No.  92,  and  Eouse  File,  No.  56,  32nd  General 
Assembly.— JoitmaZs  of  the  House  and  Senate,  1907. 

343  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  State  Federation  of  Labor,  1907, 
p.   127. 

344  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  State  Federation  of  Lahor,  1908, 
p.  129. 

345  Code  of  1851,  Section  1010. 

^^^  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1846;  Code  of  1873,  Section  2130; 
Code  of  1897,  Section  3089. 

347  Code  of  1851,  Section  1010. 

348  Revision  of  1860,  Section  1846. 

349  iaw;s  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  13. 

350  Neilson  et  als.  vs.  Iowa  Eastern  Railway  Company,  51  Iowa  184. 

351  Laws  of  Iowa,  1876,  p.  85. 

352  Code  of  1897,  Section  3091. 

353  Neilson  vs.  Iowa  Eastern  Railway  Company,  51  Iowa  184. 
Brooks  vs.  Burlington  and  Southwestern  Ry.  Co.,  101  United  States 
442;  Beach  vs.  Wakefield,  107  Iowa  567. 

CHAPTER  VI 

^^*  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lahor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
pp.  6-74. 

355  Totals  computed  by  the  writer. 

356  The  Census  of  1900  returned  14,819  * '  manufacturing  establish- 
ments" in  Iowa,  of  which  4,828  were  conducted  under  "factory 


236  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

conditions."— Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
No.  32,  p.  5. 

^^"^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
p.  9. 

^^^  Senate  File,  No.  212,  29th  General  Assembly  (1902). 

35®  The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  36  to  0,  in  the  House  68  to  14.— 
See  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1902,  pp.  274,  904,  1021,  1196;  Journal 
of  the  House,  1902,  pp.  1183,  1226,  1271,  1312. 

360  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  108. 

361  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
19 ;  1903-1904,  p.  76 ;  1906,  pp.  24-25.    Totals  computed  by  the  writer. 

362  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
pp.  16-17. 

363  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1903-1904, 
p.  5;  1906,  p.  5. 

364  House  File,  No.  228,  by  Mason ;  Senate  File,  No.  210,  by  Hughes 
(1907). 

365  Laws  of  Iowa,  1866,  p.  145 ;  1868,  p.  52 ;  Code  of  1873,  Section 
4064;  Code  of  1897,  Section  5025. 

366  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1903-1904,  pp. 
11-12. 

367  Laws  of  Iowa  (Public)  1874,  p.  12;  Code  of  1897,  Section  5026. 

368  Laws  of  Iowa,  1882,  p.  87 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  713. 

369  Reports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1887,  p.  156 ; 
1897-1898,  p.  10;  1899-1900,  pp.  18-19;  1903-1904,  p.  5. 

370  House  Files,  Nos.  219  and  221,  Senate  Files,  Nos.  193  and  250. 

^"^"^  Journal  of  the  House,  1907,  pp.  275,  288,  114;  Journal  of  the 
Senate,  1907,  pp.  301,  474,  730,  731,  802,  1000. 

372  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1907,  p. 
31;  Proceedings  of  the  Iowa  State  Manufacturers  Association,  1907, 
p.  5;  personal  interviews  and  correspondence. 

373  Laws  of  Iowa,  1882,  p.  87. 

374  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  4. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  237 

375  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lalor  Statistics,  1889-1900,  pp. 
15-16,  66-74. 

376  Laws  of  loiva,  1902,  pp.  108-110. 

377  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  pp.  61-62. 

378  lawa  Documents,  1904,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  122-123 ;  Opinion  of  At- 
torney General,  Nov.  20,  1902. 

379  The  conception  of  public  duty  entertained'  by  many  of  these 
officials  is  well  illustrated  by  the  following  letter: 

Iowa,  February  23,  '03. 

Edward  D.  Brigham,  Esq., 
Des  Moines, 
Iowa. 

Dear  Sir:— Yours  of  the  20th  as  to  notices  to  parties  as  to  fire- 
escapes  at  hand.  No,  I  have  not  served  any  legal  notice  on  any 
parties.  Several  parties  called  upon  me  as  to  requirements  and  I 
went  into  details  with  them,  but  none  have  complied,  that  I  know  of. 

I  am  otherwise  engaged  and  am  not  paid  a  salary  to  afford  the 
time  nor  have  I  the  disposition  to  hound  these  people  into  what 
should  be  their  duty  to  themselves  as  landlords  or  employers  and 
shall  take  no  steps  that  will  make  me  a  party  to  unending  litiga- 
tion and  the  ill  will  of  the  community. 

I  do  not  mean  to  shirk  any  duty  in  the  fire  department  and  am 
not  afraid  of  any  part  of  it,  but  there  are  some  things  I  do  not 
care  to  do  and  this  is  one  of  those  things. 

I  have  talked  myself  hoarse  to  show  these  people  where  a  fire 
escape  of  the  right  kind  with  a  stand-pipe  attachment  was  a  good 
thing  for  them  but  if  they  can't  see  it  that  relieves  me. 

Very  truly  yours, 


Chief  Fire  Department. 
This  letter  was  referred  to  the  mayor  of  the  city  in  question, 
who  took  no  action.  His  successor  in  office  was  appealed  to  equally 
without  effect.  The  city  attorney  advised  the  fire-chief  that  "no 
attention  be  paid  to  the  Commissioner  or  his  requests. ' '  See  Report 
of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Laior  Statistics,  1901-1902,  pp.  19-22. 

380  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  pp.  124-125. 

381  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  135. 


238  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

382  Code  of  1897,  Section  2470. 

383  Eeports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902, 
p.  26 ;  1903-1904,  pp.  78-88 ;  1906,  p.  26. 

^^^  House  File,  No.  124,  and  Senate  File,  No.  107,  31st  General 
Assembly  (1906);  House  File,  No.  125;  and  Senate  File,  No.  211, 
32nd  General  Assembly  (1907). 

385  Lahor  Laws  of  the  United  States  in  the  Tenth  Special  Report 
of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor. 

386  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  72. 

387  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  62. 

388  Prom  personal  investigations  and  inquiries  which  were  made 
by  the  writer. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902, 
pp.  28-43. 

390  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  107. 

391  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  108. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
pp.  13-14. 

393  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No. 
32,  p.  6. 

394  Address  (unpublished)  of  Mr.  Alfred  Shepherd,  Deputy  Com- 
missioner of  Labor  before  State  Convention  of  the  Master  Bakers 
of  Iowa,  February,  1906. 

^^^  House  File,  No.  412,  32nd  General  Assembly  (1907) ;  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1907,  pp.  775,  845 ;  Letter  written  by 
Mr.  Charles  L.  Marston,  Chairman  of  House  Committee  on  Public 
Health. 

^^^  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No.  32, 
p.  6 ;  Census  of  Iowa,  1905,  p.  705. 
397  Laws  of  Iowa,  1896,  p.  90. 
398 /oM;a  Documcnts,  1902,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  67. 

399  Reports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
p.  56;  1901-1902,  p.  42;  1903-1904,  p.  52;  1906,  pp.  24-25.     Data 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  239 

for  the  biennial  period  ending  October  1,  1908,  are  from  unpublished 
records  in  the  Commissioner's  office. 

400  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1896,  p.  89. 

401  Laws  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  92. 

402  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  108. 

403  Laivs  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  62. 

^'^'^  Reports  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902, 
p.  19;  1903-1904,  p.  76;  1906,  pp.  24-25. 

^^^  Report  of  the  loiva  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1903-1904, 
p.  77. 

CHAPTER  VII 

406  Pqj,  i\^Q  subject  matter  of  this  chapter  the  writer  is  especially 
indebted  to  an  article  upon  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Iowa,  by 
Professor  Isaac  A.  Loos  of  the  State  University  of  Iowa,  which  ap- 
peared in  the  October,  1905,  number  of  The  Iowa  Journal  of  History 
and  Politics;  also  to  an  unpublished  study  of  Compulsory  Educor- 
tion  in  Iowa,  by  Professor  Forest  C.  Ensign  of  The  State  University 
of  Iowa. 

407  Census  of  Iowa,  1905,  p.  Ixxxii. 

408  Census  of  Iowa,  1905,  p.  Ixvii. 

409  Census  of  Iowa,  1905,  pp.  Ivi,  Ivii. 
Foreign  born  persons  less  than  five  years  in  Iowa 

Total  30,305 

Natives  of  Germany  7,970 

Natives  of  Sweden   3,734 

Natives  of  Norway   3,528 

Natives  of  British  Isles    3,507 

Natives  of  Denmark 3,016 

Natives  of  Holland  1,691 

Natives  of  all  other  countries 6,859 

410  iaw;s  of  Iowa  (Public),  1874,  p.  24. 

411  Laws  of  Iowa,  1880,  p.  199. 

412  Report  of  State  Mine  Inspector,  1882-1883,  p.  94. 

413  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  27 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  2489. 


240  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

414  Latvs  of  Iowa,  1906,  p.  71. 

415  Statements  of  Mine  Inspectors,  and  correspondence  with  offi- 
cials of  United  Mine  Workers  of  America. 

^'^^  Seriate  File,  No.  6,  21st  General  Assembly  (1886). 

417  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1886,  pp.  50,  306,  312,  816. 

^'^^  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1888,  p.  454.  The  italics  are  the 
writer's. 

^'^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics  (1887),  pp. 
203,  408-409;  (1889)  pp.  405-407. 

^^^  Senate  File,  No.  62,  23rd  General  Assembly  (1890) ;  Journal  of 
the  Senate,  1890,  pp.  94,  241. 

421  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1890,  p.  241. 

422  Senate  File,  No.  350 ;  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1890,  pp.  318,  500. 

423  Compendium  of  the  Ninth  Census  of  the  United  States,  1870, 
p.  594;  Census  of  loiva,  1905,  p.  Ixxxii. 

424  Compendium  of  the  Ninth  Census  of  the  United  States,  1870, 
p.  797;  Census  of  loiva,  1905,  p.  693. 

425  Census  of  Iowa,  1905,  p.  Ixvii. 

426  Twelfth  Census  of  the  United  States,  Occupations,  pp.  154, 
166;  Population,  Pt.  II,  pp.  38,  111. 

427  Twelfth  Census  of  the  United  States,  Occupations,  pp.  168, 
176,  178,  180,  181,  182,  184,  clxxiii. 

428  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
449.  At  the  date  of  this  writing  (September,  1908),  1,180  children 
between  the  ages  of  14  and  16  years  are  employed  in  1,080  establish- 
ments.    Statement  of  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Labor. 

429  Address  of  Honorable  E.  D.  Brigham,  in  Proceedings  of  Iowa 
Conference  of  Charities  and  Correction,  1903,  p.  276. 

^^'^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
23. 

'^^'^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
25. 

432  Annals  of  the  American  Academy,  Vol.  XXVII,  p.  297. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  241 

^^^Beport  of  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p.  55. 

^^^Beport  of  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1903-1904,  p.  78. 

*^^  Beport  of  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p.  59. 

436  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  108. 

*37  At  all  events  several  were  found  to  have  been  injured  within 
the  first  eighteen  months  after  the  law  went  into  operation.  Beport 
of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1903-1904,  pp.  78,  ff. 

'*38  Beport  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
23. 

439  Journals  of  the  Council  of  Iowa  Territory,  1841,  pp.  284-286. 

^^^lowa  School  Beport,  1871,  pp.  59-67;  1877,  pp.  43,  61;  1881, 
p.  34;  1886-1887,  pp.  41-63;  1889,  pp.  97-101;  1899,  pp.  52-69;  1901, 
p.  19 ;  1903,  p.  Ixxxiv. 

441  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  pp.  78-80. 

442  Laics  of  Iowa,  1904,  p.  113. 

^^^  Iowa  School  Beport,  1906,  p.  26.  Professor  Ensign's  figures 
based  upon  the  same  data  are  3,710  and  1,959  respectively.  The 
source  of  the  discrepancy  does  not  appear. 

444  Iowa  School  BepoH,  1902-1903,  App.  p.  73 ;  1905,  Pt.  II,  pp.  7, 
52 ;  1906,  p.  77.  The  figures  for  1906-1907  are  from  unpublished  data 
in  the  office  of  the  State  Superintendent. 

445  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section  2823-i. 

446  The  secretaries '  returns  from  these  cities  for  the  school  year 
1906-1907  are  as  follows: 

l-H    g    to 
lO  g    <1 

o  o  B  f^ 

<Z  ».   IJ    Eh   05 

O  ^<^^ 

;3  §     §^ 

Des  Moines   75,623  84 

Dubuque    41,941  12 

Sioux   City 40,952  495 

Davenport    39,707  •                            0 

Cedar   Rapids    28,750  0 


242  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

Burlington    25,318  0 

Council  Bluffs 25,231  26 

Clinton   22,755  0 

Ottumwa    20,181  0 

All  cities  over  20,000 320,458  617 

Per  cent  of  entire  State 14.5  .09 

There  is  j?ood  reason  to  distrust  the  accuracy  of  the  returns  for 
certain  cities,  but  they  are  probably  at  least  as  reliable  as  those  for 
the  State  as  a  whole.  If  at  all  trustworthy  they  show  that  truancy 
is  a  serious  evil  in  but  one  city  of  twenty  thousand  inhabitants  in 
the  State.  It  is  said  that  the  people  of  Sioux  City  are  now  (1908), 
agitating:  the  question  of  enforcing  school  attendance. 

^*'^  Unpublished  manuscript  of  Professor  Forest  C.  Ensign. 

4*8  7ow;a  School  Report,  1906,  p.  27. 

**^  Unpublished  manuscript  of  Professor  Ensign,  answers  to  ques- 
tionaire. 

450  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  7. 

*-^i  Statement  of  Deputy  State  Superintendent  Bennett.  There 
is  no  official  report  of  the  number  of  school  corporations  having 
truant  officers, 

452  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  80. 

453  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  152. 

454  Iowa  ScJiool  Report,  1906,  p.  26. 

455  The  manuscript  of  this  unpublished  address  was  very  kindly 
loaned  to  the  writer  by  Commissioner  Brigham. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1899-1900, 
pp.  20-22. 

^^"^  Senate  File,  No.  3,  29th  General  Assembly  (1902). 

458  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1902, 
p.  185. 

459  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1902,  pp.  68,  444,  638-639 ;  Journal  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  1902,  pp.  859,  860,  917. 

460  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1902,  p. 
190;  1903,  p.  272:  1904,  pp.  211,  222;  1905,  pp.  115-119. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  243 

461  Personal  Letter  of  Mr.  T.  G.  Fletcher  of  Marshalltown. 

^^^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  pp. 
22-26. 

■^^s  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p.  5. 

^^^lowa  Documents,  1904,  Vol.  I,  pp.  20-21. 

465  Year  Book  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  1905- 
1906,  p.  116. 

466  Reprinted  from  House  Bills,  30th  General  Assembly.  House 
File,  No.  43,  is  identical  with  Senate  File,  No.  56. 

467  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1904,  pp.  93,  162,  203,  215,  216,  230-234, 
511,  518. 

468  Pqj.  ^}jjg  summary  of  arguments  used  on  the  floor  of  the  House, 
the  writer  is  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  S.  Hart  of  Waukon  and  Mr.  J. 
C.  DeMar  of  "Davis  county.  The  legislative  debates  are  not  pub- 
lished. 

469  Year  Book  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  1905- 
1906,  p.  116 ;  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1904, 
p.  189. 

470  There  were  88  petitions  from  48  counties. 

471  Journal  of  the  Rouse  of  Representatives,  1904,  pp.  446-447. 

472  See   Annals   of   the   American  Academy,   Vol.    XXVII,    pp. 

285-288. 

473  The  growth  of  this  industry  in  one  unregulated  and  two  reg- 
ulated States  is  exhibited  in  the  following  table.  The  comparison 
is  limited  to  canned  vegetables  since  that  is  the  only  department  of 
the  canning  industry  important  in  Iowa: 

PEK  CENT 
VALUE    OF  OF 

STATE  CHILDREN  UNDER  16  CANNED  VEGETABLES  INCREASE  RANK 

1899  1904  1899  1904  1899  1904 

Illinois    ...  47  37       $1,774,913       $2,946,788       m  6       4 

New  York.. 219  161       $4,410,251       $6,836,451       55  2       2 

Maryland.  .986       1,117      $6,260,691      $9,556,611      52.6       1       1 

Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No.  61,  pp. 
14-15. 


244  fflSTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

*'^*  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No.  85, 
p.  22. 

^''^  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No.  69, 
pp.  18-41. 

^■^^  All  the  reasons  mentioned  in  the  text  were  assigned,  in  an- 
swer to  the  writer's  inquiries,  by  employers,  labor  leaders,  truant 
officers,  humanitarian  workers,  and  others  familiar  with  the  facts. 
Drunkenness  and  extravagance  were  more  frequently  mentioned  than 
any  of  the  others. 

^'^'^Loos's  Child  Labor  Legislation  in  Iowa  in  the  October,  1905, 
number  of  The  loiva  Journal  of  History  and  Politics. 

478  Proceedings  of  the  Eighth  Iowa  Conference  of  Charities  and 
Correction,  p.  70. 

*'^  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1905,  p. 
133 ;  1906,  p.  103. 

*^°  House  File,  No.  74,  by  Hart ;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, 1906,  p.  157;  Senate  File,  No.  57,  by  Dowell,  Journal  of 
the  Senate,  1906,  p.  102. 

^^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  395-397. 

*^2  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  499-501. 

483  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1906,  pp.  445,  448,  621-623,  658-660. 

^^'^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  770-771, 
823-929,  1117-1119,  1153,  1191,  1194,  1218,  1236;  Journal  of  the 
Seriate,  1906,  pp.  712,  732,  835,  837,  1038,  1046,  1048,  1049,  1150, 
1152. 

"^^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  395-397; 
Laws  of  loiva,  1906,  pp.  71-73. 

486  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  p.  499. 

48'^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  pp.  499-500. 

488  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1906,  p.  499. 

489  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1906,  p.  622. 

490  Opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  Iowa  State  Mine  Inspector's 
Report,  1906,  p.  74. 


NOTES  AND  EEFERENCES  245 

*^i  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census,  No.  61,  pp. 
14,  15,  23,  24. 

492  Report  of  Iowa  Bureau  of  Laior  Statistics,  1906,  pp.  261-270. 

493  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lalor  Statistics,  1906,  p.  267. 

MONTH  TOTAL    NUMBER    OP    EMPLOYEES 

July    246 

August   3,255 

September    4,152 

October 644 

49*  This  discussion  is  based  on  correspondence  and  interviews 
with  members  of  the  legislature,  factory  inspectors,  and  owners  and 
employees  of  canneries. 

495  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1906,  pp.  657-658. 

496  Report  of  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1906,  pp.  5,  6,  25. 

497  Unpublished  data  in  the  office  of  the  Commissioner  of  Labor. 

498  Laws  of  loiva,  1906,  p.  73. 

499  Letter  of  Mr.  C.  C.  Dowell  of  Des  Moines,  who  had  charge 
of  the  Child  Labor  Bill  in  the  Senate  both  in  1904  and  1906. 

500  One  store  at  Davenport  visited  by  the  writer  had  a  posted 
list  of  23  children  under  sixteen,  of  whom  thirteen  were  put  down 
as  barely  fourteen.  At  a  broom  factory  in  the  same  city  the  num- 
bers were  14  and  8,  respectively.  Like  facts  were  observed  else- 
where. 

501  See  p.  125. 

502  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1906,  p.  6. 

503  Pqj.  ^jiig  statement  the  writer  is  indebted  to  the  efficient  humane 
officer  at  Davenport.  He  has  been  told  the  same  thing  by  well-informed 
persons  elsewhere. 

504  There  are  no  statistics  of  the  street-trades  in  Iowa.  The 
writer's  statements  rest  on  personal  observation  and  inquiry. 

505  That  this  is  no  hypothetical  case  is  shown  by  the  following 
conversation  between  the  writer  and  a  newsboy  on  Walnut  Street, 
Des  Moines,  one  chilly  November  afternoon: — "How  old  are  you?" 

Most  'leven."    "Go  to  school?"    "Yes,  sir."    "When  do  you  be- 

17 


<  I  r 


246  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

gin  work?"  " Right  after  school. "  " How  long  do  you  work ? "  "Oh, 
sometimes  eight,  sometimes  nine,  sometimes  I  guess  its  ten.  Gen- 
eral 'bout  nine."  "Do  you  walk  home  then?"  "No,  I  go  on  the 
car."  "  'Taint  so  far,"  he  added,  "but  it  seems  like  a  good  piece 
after  dark."  This  boy  lived  in  the  uptoA\Ti  residence  district,  on 
Grand  Avenue. 

506  Adams's  Children  in  American  Street  Trades  in  the  Annals 
of  the  American  Academy,  Vol.  XXV,  pp.  437-458;  Hall's  After 
School  Hours— What?  in  Chanty,  Vol.  XI,  pp.  224-228. 

50"^  These  statements  are  made  on  the  authority  of  the  well  in- 
formed persons  in  ten  of  the  largest  cities  in  Iowa. 

508  Statement  of  the  truant  officer  of  Des  Moines— a  gentleman 
who  has  had  many  years'  experience  in  dealing  with  juvenile  delin- 
quents in  that  city. 

CHAPTER  VIII 

509  The  cases  most  frequently  referred  to  as  establishing  the 
two  most  characteristic  features  of  the  law  of  employers'  liability 
(assumption  of  risk  and  its  corollary  the  fellow-servant  rule)  are: 
Priestly  vs.  Fowler,  4  Mees  and  Welsby  1  (1837);  Murray  vs. 
South  Carolina  Railroad  Company,  1  McMullan  385  (1841) ;  Far- 
well  vs.  Boston  and  Worcester  Rail  Road  Corporation,  4  Metcalf  49 
(1842). 

510  Galloway  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 87  Iowa  458  (1893) :  McCaull  vs.  Bruner,  91  Iowa  214  (1894) ; 
Rusch  vs.  City  of  Davenport,  6  Iowa  443  (1858). 

511  Dillon  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway  Company,  118  Iowa  645 
(1902) ;  Boston  Insurance  Company  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and 
Pacific  Railway  Company,  118  Iowa  423  (1902). 

512  Handelun  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Rail- 
way Company,  72  Iowa  709   (1887). 

513  Liming  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  81  Iowa  246 
(1890).  Proximate  cause  is  probable  cause,  and  the  proximate  con- 
sequence of  a  given  act  or  omission  is  one  which  succeeds  naturally 
in  the  ordinary  course  of  things,  and  which,  therefore,  ought  to  have 
been  anticipated  by  the  wrong  doer.  Watson  vs.  Dilts,  116  Iowa 
249   (1902).     But  where  an  act  is  liable  to  produce  many  familiar 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  247 

results  which  would  cause  injury,  it  is  no  less  negligent  because  the 
accident  which  does  occur  is  so  unusual  and  extraordinary  that  it 
could  not  reasonably  be  expected  to  happen.  Doyle  vs.  Chicago,  St. 
Paul  and  Kansas  City  Railway  Company,  77  Iowa  607  (1889). 

The  determination  of  the  proximate  cause  of  an  injury  is  often 
a  nice  question,  and  is  considered  in  very  numerous  cases. 

51*  Wright  vs.  Illinois  and  Mississippi  Telegraph  Company,  20 
Iowa  195  (1886).  The  doctrine  of  contributory  negligence  is  stated 
or  applied  in  numberless  cases. 

515  0  'Keef e  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 32  Iowa  467  (1871) :  Rietveld  vs.  Wabash  Railroad  Company, 
129  Iowa  249  (1906). 

516  Jerolman  vs.  Chicago  Great  Western  Railway  Company,  108 
Iowa  177  (1899). 

51'^  Hatfield  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 61  Iowa  434  (1883). 

518  Cooper  vs.  Central  Railroad  of  Iowa,  44  Iowa,  134  (1876) ; 
Keefe  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa  182 

(1894). 

5i9Baird  vs.  Morford,  29  Iowa  531  (1870). 

520  HopMnson  vs.  Knapp  and  Spalding  Company,  92  Iowa  328 
(1894) ;  Murphy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pan3%  45  Iowa  661  (1877). 

521  Murphy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 45  Iowa  661  (1877). 

522  Ellis  vs.  Republic  Oil  Company,  133  Iowa  11  (1906). 

523  Dalton  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 104  Iowa  26  (1897). 

524  Phinney  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  122  Iowa  488 
(1904). 

525  Greenleaf  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  29  Iowa  14 
(1870). 

526  Keist  vs.  Chicago  Great  Western  Railway  Company,  110  Iowa 
32   (1899). 


248  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

527  Pierson  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  127 
Iowa  13  (1905). 

528  Callahan  vs.  Burlington  and  Missouri  River  Railroad  Com- 
pany, 23  Iowa  562  (1867). 

529  Kellogg  vs.  Payne,  21  Iowa  575  (1866). 

530  Aga  vs.  Harbaeh,  127  Iowa  144  (1905). 

531  Baker  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 95  Iowa  163  (1895). 

532  Butler  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railroad  Company, 
87  Iowa  206  (1893). 

533  Parrott  vs.  Chicago  Great  "Western  Railway  Company,  127 
Iowa  419   (1905). 

534  Kelleher  vs.  Schmitt  and  Henry  Manufacturing  Company,  122 
Iowa  635   (1904). 

535  Lanza  vs.  Legrand  Quarry  Company,  115  Iowa  299  (1902). 

536  Greenleaf  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  29  Iowa  14 
(1870). 

537  Hunt  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railroad  Company,  26 
Iowa  363  (1868) ;  Brusseau  vs.  Lower  Brick  Company,  133  Iowa  245 
(1907). 

538  Gould  vs.  Schermer,  101  Iowa  582  (1897). 

539  Murphy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 38  Iowa  539  (1874). 

540Brann  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 53  Iowa  595  (1880) ;  Stockwell  t;^.  Chicago  and  Northwestern 
Railway  Company,  106  Iowa  63  (1898). 

541  Scott  vs.  Iowa  Telephone  Company,  126  Iowa  524  (1905); 
Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  light  Company,  131  Iowa  724  (1906). 

542  Meloy  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  77 
Iowa  744  (1889). 

543  McKee  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 83  Iowa  616  (1891). 

544  Brownfield  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 107  Iowa  254  (1899). 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  249 

5*5  Cushman  vs.  Carbondale  Fuel  Company,  116  Iowa  618  (1902) ; 
Blazenic  vs.  Iowa  and  AViseonsin  Coal  Company,  102  Iowa  706 
(1897). 

546  Hall  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
116  Northwestern  113  (1908) ;  Cooper  vs.  Central  Railroad  of  Iowa, 
44  Iowa  134  (1876). 

5*'^  Hamilton  vs.  Des  Moines  Valley  Railroad  Company,  36  Iowa 
31  (1872) ;  Austin  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway 
Company,  93  Iowa  236   (1895). 

548  Ives  vs.  AVeldon,  114  Iowa  476  (1901). 

549  Messenger  vs.  Pate,  42  Iowa  443  (1876). 

550  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  vs.  Voel- 
ker,  129  Federal  522. 

551  Calloway  vs.  Agar  Packing  Company,  129  Iowa  1  (1905). 
552Mosgrove  vs.  Zimbleman  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  169  (1899). 

553  Tobey  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Rail- 
way Company,  94  Iowa  256   (1895). 

554  Dodge  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Missouri  River  Rail- 
way Company,  34  Iowa  276  (1872). 

555  Forbes  vs.  Boone  Valley  Railway  Company,  113  Iowa  94 
(1901);  Taylor  vs.  Star  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  40  (1899). 

556  Fink  vs.  Des  Moines  Ice  Company,  84  Iowa  321  (1892). 

557  Mosgrove  vs.  Zimbleman  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  169  (1899) ; 
Kroeger  vs.  Marsh  Bridge  Company,  116  Northwestern  125  (1908). 

558  See  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa 
724  (1906),  where  various  statements  of  the  master's  duty  are 
discussed. 

559Barto  vs.  Iowa  Telephone  Company,  126  Iowa  241  (1904). 

560  Mosgrove  vs.  Zimbleman  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  169  (1899). 

561  Morris  vs.  Excelsior  Coal  Company,  95  Iowa  639  (1895). 

562  Oleson  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  115  Iowa 
74  (1901). 


250  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

563  Taylor  vs.  Star  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  40  (1899) ;  Thayer  vs. 
Smoky  Hollow  Coal  Company,  121  Iowa  121  (1903). 

564  Newbury  vs.  Getchel  Manufacturing  Company,  100  Iowa  441 
j(1896).  Anderson  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  109  Iowa 
524  (1899). 

565  Trcka  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  100  Iowa  205  (1896). 

566  Forbes  vs.  Boone  Valley  Coal  and  Railway  Company,  113  Iowa 
94  (1901)  ;  Young  vs.  Burlington  Wire  Mattress  Company,  79  Iowa 
415  (1890). 

567  Trcka  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  100  Iowa  205  (1896).  See  also  the  cases  cited  in  notes 
565  and  566. 

568  Burns  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Com- 
pany, 69  Iowa  450  (1886). 

569  Bryee  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  119  Iowa  274   (1903). 

570  Young  vs.  Burlington  AVire  Mattress  Company,  79  Iowa  415 
(1890).    Failure  to  cover  knives  of  tenon-machine. 

571  Harney  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 115  Northwestern  886  (1908).  Failure  to  guard  a  rip-saw, 
it  being  shown  that  several  methods  of  guarding  such  a  saw  were 
in  common  use. 

572  Shebeck  vs.  National  Cracker  Company,  120  Iowa  414  (1903). 

573  Greenleaf  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  29  Iowa  14 
,(1870). 

574Brusseau  vs.  Lower  Brick  Company,  133  Iowa  245  (1907). 

575  Brann  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 53  Iowa  595  (1880). 

576  Knapp  vs.  Sioux  City  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  71  Iowa 
41  (1887). 

577  Brusseau  vs.  Lower  Brick  Company,  133  Iowa  245  (1907). 

578  Boston  Insurance  Company  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pa- 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  251 

cific  Railway  Company,  118  Iowa  423  ( 1902 ) ;  Way  vs.  Chicago  and 
Northwestern  Railway  Company,  76  Iowa  393  (1888). 

^'^  Hathaway  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa  337 
(1894). 

580  Scott  vs.  Iowa  Telephone  Company,  126  Iowa  524  (1905). 

581  Wicklund  vs.  Say  lor  Coal  Company,  119  Iowa  335  (1903). 

582  Hathaway  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa  337 
(1894). 

583  Cooper  vs.  Central  Railroad  of  Iowa,  44  Iowa  134  (1876). 

584Beardsley  vs.  Murray  Iron  Works,  129  Iowa  675  (1906).  In- 
experienced employees  should  have  been  instructed  how  they  might 
safely  roll  a  heavy  wheel. 

585  Hendrickson  vs.  United  States  Gypsum  Company,  133  Iowa 
89  (1907).  It  is  the  duty  of  a  mine  operator  to  warn  employees  of 
an  expected  explosion  in  blasting. 

586  Hanson  vs.  Hammell,  107  Iowa  171  (1898). 

587  McCarthy  vs.  Mulgrew,  107  Iowa  76  (1899). 

588  Baker  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 95  Iowa  163  (1895). 

589  Sedgwick  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  76  Iowa  340 
(1888) ;  Brownfield  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway 
Company,  107  Iowa  254  (1899).  The  distinction  is  recognized  in 
Gorman  vs.  Des  Moines  Brick  Company,  99  Iowa  257  (1896). 

590  Gould  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
66  Iowa  590  (1885). 

591  Rose  vs.  Des  Moines  Valley  Railway  Company,  39  Iowa  246 
(1874)  ;  Scagel  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Com- 
pany, 83  Iowa  380  (1891). 

592  The  employee  should  exercise  such  care  as  a  prudent  per- 
son might  reasonably  be  expected  to  exercise  in  view  of  all  the  cir- 
cumstances of  the  particular  case,  so  far  as  they  are  known  to  him, 
or  are  discoverable  in  the  exercise  of  proper  diligence.  Baird  vs. 
Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  61  Iowa  361 
(1883).    A  high  degree  of  care  is  reasonable  in  running  a  train  at 


252  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

night  during  or  immediately  after  a  heavy  storm.     Scagel  vs.  Chi- 
cago, Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  83  Iowa  380  (1891). 

^^^  No  one  can  be  charged  with  negligence  in  failing  to  avoid 
dangers  of  which  he  knows  nothing.  Kearns  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee 
and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  66  Iowa  599  (1885). 

^^*  Greenleaf  vs.  Dubuque  and  Sioux  City  Railroad  Company,  33 
Iowa  52  (1871). 

^^5  Stanley  vs.  Cedar  Rapids  and  Marion  City  Railway  Com- 
pany, 119  Iowa  526  (1903). 

596Sprague  vs.  Atlee,  81  Iowa  1  (1890). 

^^■^  Horan  vs.  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  and  Omaha  Railway 
Company,  89  Iowa  328  (1893).  A  brakeman,  coupling  cars  in  the 
night  time  is  not  bound  to  know  that  the  ballast  has  been  washed 
from  between  certain  ties  in  the  road-bed. 

5^8  In  determining  whether  a  brakeman  was  or  was  not  negligent 
"  It  is  competent  for  the  .jury  to  take  into  consideration  the  hazardous 
nature  of  the  work  in  which  brakemen  are  employed;  their  means 
of  knowledge ;  what  they  are  reasonably  required  to  know,  in  the 
nature  of  their  calling,  of  machinery;  the  thought  and  reflection  de- 
manded or  expected  of  such  persons;  their  just  expectation  that  the 
company  Avill  exercise  due  care  and  prudence  in  protecting  them 
against  injury;  and  to  give  due  weight  to  those  instincts  which 
naturally  lead  men  to  avoid  injury  and  preserve  their  lives."— 
Greenleaf  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  29  Iowa  14  (1870). 

^^®  See  cases  cited  in  note  548. 

600  Taylor  vs.  Star  Coal  Company,  110  Iowa  40  (1899).  A  miner 
injured  on  Sunday  by  fall  of  slate  may  recover  notAvithstanding  his 
violation  of  the  Sunday  law,  such  an  accident  being  no  more  likely 
to  occur  on  Sunday  than  on  other  days. 

601  Sedgwick  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  76  Iowa  340 

(1888). 

602  Reed  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  72  Iowa  166  (1887).  A  brakeman  went  between  cars  to 
make  a  coupling,  in  violation  of  a  rule  of  the  company,  but  it 
appeared  that  the  accident  would  not  have  been  avoided  had  he 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  253 

observed  the  rule.    It  was  held  that  he  was  not  negligent  as  a  matter 
of  law. 

6*^^  Pierson  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  127 
Iowa  13  (1905).  It  was  not  negligence  as  a  matter  of  law,  for  a 
brakeman  to  go  between  cars  in  motion  and  draw  a  coupling  pin 
by  hand,  in  violation  of  a  standing  rule,  when  the  automatic  coupler 
was  out  of  order. 

6^*  Spaulding  vs.  Chicago,  St.  Paul  and  Kansas  City  Railway 
Company,  98  Iowa  215  (1896) ;  Strong  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway 
Company,  94  Iowa  380  (1895). 

^^^  Gibson  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  107  Iowa  596  (1899). 

6<^6  Gormon  vs.  Des  Moines  Brick  Company,  99  Iowa  257  (1896). 
Employee  was  negligent,  as  a  matter  of  law,  in  attempting  to  adjust 
a  shaft  bearing  while  in  motion  when  he  knew  it  was  highly  danger- 
ous to  do  so  and  when  he  might  easily  have  stopped  the  machine. 

*°'^  Reed  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  72  Iowa  166  (1887)  ;  Baird  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and 
Pacific  Railway  Company,  61  Iowa  361   (1883). 

608  Horan  vs.  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  and  Omaha  Rail- 
way Company,  89  Iowa  328  (1893).  A  brakeman  discarded  a  stick 
provided  by  the  railway  company  to  be  used  in  making  couplings. 
It  did  not  appear  that,  under  the  particular  circumstances,  the 
coupling  could  have  been  more  safely  made  by  the  use  of  such  stick. 
It  was  held  that  the  question  of  contributory  negligence  was  for 
the  jury. 

609  Pierson  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  127 
Iowa  13  (1905). 

^^^Magee  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  82 
Iowa  249  (1891).  Brakeman  stepped  off  moving  train  without  look- 
ing to  see  in  which  direction  it  was  going. 

^^^  McKee  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
83  Iowa  616  (1891).  Brakeman  was  struck  by  the  wing  fence  at  a 
cattle  guard,  while  leaning  out  from  the  side  ladder  of  a  car  to 
investigate  a  broken  brake  beam.  It  was  h,eld  (Justice  Beck  dis- 
senting) that,  being  chargeable  with  knowledge  that  the  wing  fence 


254  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

approached  within  two  feet  of  the  bottom  of  the  car,  he  was  negli- 
gent in  leaning  out  in  the  manner  that  he  did.  To  the  writer  it 
seems  more  consonant  with  justice  to  hold  that  this  case  comes 
within  the  rule  followed  in  Bryce  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St. 
Paul  Railway  Company,  103  Iowa  665  (1897).    See  note  618. 

612  Doggett  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railroad  Company,  34  Iowa  284 
(1872).  An  emploj^ee,  not  engaged  in  the  operation  of  the  train, 
rode  upon  the  engine  tender,  and  was  killed  by  the  breaking  down  of 
a  culvert.  Had  he  ridden  in  the  caboose,  he  would  not  have  been 
injured.    It  was  held  that  he  could  not  recover. 

612  Beckman  vs.  Consolidation  Coal  Company,  90  Iowa  252  (1894). 
Emploj^ee  left  a  *' spring  switch"  open  and  was  injured  by  a  train 
of  mine  cars  thereby  thrown  on  to  an  "empty"  track. 

61*  Thoman  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  92 
Iowa  196  (1894).  Railway  employee  passed  near  a  box  car  from 
which  he  knew  ties  were  being  rapidly  thrown,  without  giving  any 
warning  of  his  approach. 

615  Sprague  vs.  Atlee,  81  Iowa  1  (1890).  A  boy  of  thirteen,  in- 
experienced in  the  operation  of  a  buzz-saw  was  not,  as  a  matter  of 
law,  guilty  of  negligence  in  changing  the  gauge  in  the  manner  in 
which  he  had  been  taught  to  do  it,  though  there  may  have  been 
other  and  safer  methods  of  effecting  the  change. 

616  McDermott  vs.  Iowa  Falls  and  Sioux  City  Railway  Company, 
85  Iowa  180  (1892).  Brakeman  injured  by  slipping  upon  ice-covered 
end-gate.  It  was  held  that  the  question  of  his  negligence  in  step- 
ping upon  the  end-gate  would  depend  upon  the  haste  required  in 
the  performance  of  the  duty  in  which  he  was  then  engaged. 

617  Frandsen  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 36  Iowa  372  (1873).  But  an  emergency  created  by  an  em- 
ployee Avill  not  excuse  his  contributory  negligence  at  the  time  of 
the  injury.  Nelling  vs.  Chicago,  St.  Paul  and  Kansas  City  Railway 
Company,  98  Iowa  554  (1896). 

618  Bryce  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Com- 
pany, 103  Iowa  665  (1897).  A  brakeman  was  struck  by  bolts  pro- 
jecting from  a  truss  built  on  the  side  of  a  bridge  while  he  was  climb- 
ing down  the  side  ladder  of  a  box-car  in  order  to  reach  a  flat-car 
to  release  the  brake  on  the  latter.     It  was  held  that  he  was  not 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  255 

negligent,  as  a  matter  of  law,  in  not  looking  out  for  a  danger  which 
resulted  from  improper  construction  of  the  bridge,  and  of  which 
he  had  no  actual  knowledge.  Compare  McKee  vs.  Chicago,  Rock 
Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  83  Iowa  616  (1891),  where 
an  opposite  conclusion  was  reached  from  a  similar  state  of  facts. 

619  Stomne  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  108  Iowa  137  (1899). 
Plaintiff  was  injured  while  riding  on  a  freight  elevator.  It  was 
customary  for  employees  moving  freight  to  ride  on  this  elevator, 
though  it  was  known  to  be  less  safe  than  the  passenger  elevator. 
It  was  held  that  the  question  of  contributory  negligence  was  for  the 
jury. 

620  Kroy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 32  Iowa  357  (1871).  To  stand  on  the  deadwood  of  a  moving 
car  while  attempting  to  draw  the  coupling  pin,  is  negligence  as  a 
matter  of  law,  notwithstanding  the  practice  may  be  customary. 

621  Nichols  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 69  Iowa  154  (1886). 

622  The  assumption  of  the  ordinary  risks  of  the  employment  was 
apparently  first  laid  down  in  this  State  in  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi 
and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  11  Iowa  421  (1860)  ;  and  that  of 
known  extraordinary  risks  in  Greenleaf  vs.  Illinois  Central  Rail- 
road Company,  29  Iowa  14  (1870).  Both  aspects  of  the  doctrine  arc 
quite  fully  discussed  in  the  recent  case  of  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines 
Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724   (1906). 

623  Martin  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railroad  Com- 
pany, 118  Iowa  148   (1902). 

624  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Misssouri  Railroad  Company,  11 
Iowa  421  (1860).  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company, 
131   Iowa  724    (1906). 

625  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 
(1906).  "M^hen  the  employer,  or  those  representing  him,  has  pro- 
vided a  place  which  is  reasonably  safe  in  itself,  and  has  furnished 
reasonably  safe  tools  and  appliances  and  reasonably  competent  fel- 
low workmen,  then  the  risk  incident  to  the  progress  of  the  work 
as  carried  on  by  the  employees  is  assumed  by  virtue  of  the  em- 
ployment, and  for  an  injury  received  in  the  prosecution  of  the  work 
in  such  place  with  such  appliances  and  in  connection  with  such  fel- 


256  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

low  workmen  the  employe  cannot  recover  from  the  employer." — 
McQueeny  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
120  Iowa  522  (1903). 

^26  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 
(1906). 

627  Stomne  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  108  Iowa  137  (1899) ; 
Wilder  vs.  Great  Western  Cereal  Company,  130  Iowa   263  (1906). 

628  Mayes  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
63  Iowa  562  (1884). 

629  Wilder  vs.  Great  Western  Cereal  Company,  134  Iowa  451 
(1907). 

630  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 
(1906) ;  McQueeny  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway 
Company,  120  Iowa    522  (1903). 

631  Kerns  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
94  Iowa    121  (1895). 

632  Conners  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  74  Iowa  383   (1888). 

633  Mumf ord  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 128  Iowa  685  (1905). 

634  All  risks  which  are  naturally  or  necessarily  incident  to  the 
service.— Sankey  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 118  Iowa  39  (1902). 

635  Duree  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
118  Iowa  640  (1902). 

636  Wilder  vs.  Great  Western  Cereal  Company,  130  Iowa,  263 
(1906). 

637  Olson  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  118  Iowa  55  (1902). 

638  Wilder  vs.  Great  Western  Cereal  Company,  130  Iowa  263 
(1906). 

639  Patton  vs.  Central  Iowa  Railway  Company,  73  Iowa  306 
(1887).     Trainmen  assume  the  risk  due  to  cattle  straying  onto  an 

•anfenced  right-of-way. 

640  The  additional  risks  from  snow  and  its  removal  from  the  track 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  257 

by  snow  plows  are  among  those  necessarily  attending  the  operation 
of  railroads. 

6*1  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 
(1906). 

6*2  Wahlquist  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  116 
Iowa  720  (1902). 

6*3  Oleson  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  115  Iowa 
74  (1901). 

6*4  Nugent  vs.  Cudahy  Packing  Company,  126  Iowa  517  (1905). 

6*5  McQueeny  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Com- 
pany, 120  loAva  522  (1903). 

6*6  Oleson  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  115  Iowa 
74  (1901). 

6*'^  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 

(1906). 

6*8Labatt's  Employer's  Liability,  Vol.  I,  p.  620.  See  Moran  vs. 
Harris,  63  Iowa  390  (1884)  and  Schminkey  vs.  Sinclair  Company, 
114  Northwestern  612   (1908). 

649  jhqj.  statements  of  this  rule  see  Perigo  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island 
and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  52  Iowa  276  (1879),  and  Mumford 
vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  128  Iowa  685 
(1905). 

650  Gormon  vs.  Des  Moines  Brick  Company,  99  Iowa  257  (1896). 

651  Cowles  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 

102  Iowa  507  (1897). 

652  Kroy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
32  Iowa  357  (1871). 

653  Mace  vs.  Boedker  and  Company,  127  Iowa  721  (1905). 

65*  Arenschield  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 128  Iowa  677  (1905). 

655  Coates  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  62  Iowa  486  (1883). 

656  Bryee  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 

103  Iowa  665   (1897). 


258  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

657  Olson  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  118  Iowa  55  (1902). 

65^  Harney  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com. 
pany,  115  Northwestern  886  (1908). 

659Shebeck  vs.  National  Cracker  Company,  120  Iowa  414  (1903). 

660  Carver  vs.  Minneapolis  and  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  120 
Iowa  346  (1903). 

661  Mace  vs.  Boedker  and  Company,  127  Iowa  721  (1905) ;  Mayes 
vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  63  Iowa  562 

(1884). 

662  Nugent  vs.  Cudahy  Packing  Company,  126  Iowa  517  (1905). 
A  carpenter  is  not  presumed  to  have  knowledge  of  the  sufficiency  of 
a  brick  pier  to  support  a  building. 

663Crabell  vs.  Wapello  Coal  Company,  68  Iowa  751  (1886).  A 
car  conductor  killed  on  the  first  day  of  his  employment  in  that  capacity 
is  not  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  dangers  from  the  roof  and  walls 
of  the  slope. 

664  Bryce  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
103  Iowa  665  (1897).  A  brakeman,  who  is  usually  on  the  top  of 
cars  while  crossing  a  bridge,  is  not  chargeable  with  knowledge  of  the 
distance  between  the  bridge  truss  and  the  sides  of  the  cars. 

665  Youll  vs.  Sioux  City  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  66  Iowa 
346  ( 1885 ) .  A  brakeman  seventeen  years  of  age  held  to  have  assumed 
the  risk  of  making  a  flying  switch. 

666  Shebeck  vs.  National  Cracker  Company,  120  Iowa  414  (1903). 
An  instruction  M^as  erroneous  which  did  not  direct  the  jury  to  con- 
sider the  age  of  the  servant,  a  boy  of  eighteen,  in  determining  the 
question  of  assumption  of  risk.  In  Woolf  vs.  Nauman  Company,  128 
Iowa  261  (1905),  an  instruction  was  approved  which  made  it  incum- 
bent upon  the  defendant  to  show  that  a  boy  of  fourteen  possessed 
sufficient  knowledge  and  experience  to  comprehend  the  dangers  of 
operating  a  buzz-saw. 

667  Coles  vs.  Union  Terminal  Railway  Company,  124  Iowa  48 
(1904). 

668  Harney  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 115  Northwestern  886  (1908). 


NOTES  AND  KEFERENCES  259 

669AVells  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway- 
Company,,  56  Iowa  520  (1881). 

670  Olson  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  118  Iowa  55  (1902). 

6'^!  Perigo  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
52  Iowa  276  a879). 

^■^2  In  Harney  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 115  NorthAvestern  886  (1908),  it  was  held  that  the  danger 
that  a  board  will  be  caught  and  drawn  back  by  the  teeth  of  an  un- 
guarded saw  is  not  apparent  to  an  inexperienced  operator.  In  Kerns 
vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  94  Iowa  121 
(1895)  it  was  held  a  yard  employee  is  not  bound  to  appreciate  the 
danger  of  coupling  a  pilot  bar  to  a  box-car.  But  in  Sutton  vs.  Des 
Moines  Bakery,  112  Northwestern  836  (1907),  an  experienced  oper- 
ative is  held  to  have  assumed  the  risk  that  his  hand  may  be  caught 
between  the  unguarded  rollers  of  a  dough  mixer. 

^■^2  Money  vs.  Lower  Vein  Coal  Company,  55  Iowa  671  (1881). 

^'^^  Box  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
107  Iowa  660  (1899). 

6'^^  Way  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  76  Iowa 

393  (1888). 

^'^^  Youll  vs.  Sioux  City  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  66  Iowa 
346  (1885).    Employee  assumed  the  risk  of  making  a  flying  switch. 

6'^'^  Martin  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
118  Iowa  148  (1902),    Habitual  violation  of  speed  ordinance. 

6'''^  Bromberg  vs.  Evans  Laundry  Company,  134  Iowa  38  (1907). 

679Woolf  vs.  Nauman  Company,  128  Iowa  261  (1905). 

6^^  Coates  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  62  Iowa  486  (1883). 

681  Coles  vs.  Union  Terminal  Railway  Company,  124  Iowa  48 
(1904). 

682  Bryce  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  128  Iowa  483  (1905). 

683  Greenleaf  vs.  Dubuque  and  Sioux  City  Railway  Company,  33 
Iowa  52  (1871). 


260  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

^^*  Pieart  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
82  Iowa  148  (1891). 

685  Poster  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
127  Iowa  84  (1905). 

686  Stoutenburgh  vs.  Dow  et  al.,  82  Iowa  179  (1891). 

687  Pieart  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
82  Iowa  148  (1891).  Railway  company  is  bound  by  the  promise  of 
a  yard-master  in  regard  to  a  switch  engine. 

688  Frandsen  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 36  Iowa  372  (1873).  Section  hand  remained  on  hand  car  by 
order  of  the  foreman,  though  he  knew  that  a  passenger  train  for 
which  the  section  crew  were  to  yield  the  track  was  overdue.  Strong 
vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway  Company,  94  Iowa  380  (1895).  Brake- 
man  stood  on  the  locomotive  pilot  to  make  a  coupling  by  order  of 
the  engineer. 

689Gormon  vs.  Des  Moines  Brick  Company,  99  Iowa  257  (1896). 
An  order  to  crowd  a  machine  and  not  to  allow  it  to  stop  was  not  a 
command  to  attempt  to  adjust  its  bearings  while  in  motion. 

690  "Wahlquist  vs.  Maple  Grove  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  116 
Iowa  720  (1902). 

691  Stomne  vs.  Hanford  Produce  Company,  108  Iowa  137  (1899). 
An  employee  was  justified  in  relying  upon  the  superintendent's  assur- 
ance as  to  the  safety  of  an  elevator  cable. 

692  Perigo  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
52  Iowa  276  (1879). 

693Labatt's  Employer's  Liability,  Section  281. 

694  Laws  of  Iowa,  1890,  p.  31 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  2083. 

^^^  House  File,  No.  14,  31st  General  Assembly  (1906). 

696  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1906, 
p.  133. 

697  Substitute  for  Senate  File,  No.  236,  32nd  General  Assembly 
(1907) ;  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1907,  pp. 
126-127. 

698  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  182 ;  Code  of  Iowa,  Supplement,  1907, 
Section  4999-a  3. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  261 

6^9  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  11 
Iowa  421  (1860). 

■^00  See  Huggard  vs.  Sugar  Refining  Company,  132  Iowa  734 
(1907)  and  cases  there  cited. 

701  Gould  vs.  Schermer,  101  Iowa  582  (1897) ;  Madden  vs.  Saylor 
Coal  Company,  133  Iowa  699  (1907). 

702 Fink  vs.  Des  Moines  lee  Company,  84  Iowa  321  (1892). 

703  Haworth  vs.  Seevers  Manufacturing  Company,  87  Iowa  765 

(1892). 

704Beresford  vs.  American  Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904). 

705  Hendrickson  vs.  United  States  Gypsum  Company,  133  Iowa  89 
(1907). 

706  Schminkey  vs.  Sinclair  Company,  114  Northwestern  612  (1908). 

707  See  an  enumeration  of  non-delegable  duties  in  Beresford  vs. 
American  Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904). 

708  Blazenic  vs.  loAva  and  Wisconsin  Coal  Company,  102  Iowa  706 

(1897). 

709  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  11 
Iowa  421  (1860). 

710  Hoben  vs.  Burlington  and  Missouri  River  Railroad  Company, 
20  Iowa  562  (1866). 

711  Beresford  vs.  American  Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904). 

712  Peterson  vs.  Whitebreast  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  50  Iowa 
673  (1879).  Hathaway  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  92 
Iowa  337  (1894). 

713  Hathaway  vs.  City  of  Des  Moines,  97  Iowa  333  (1896). 

714  See  Baldwin  vs.  St.  Louis,  Keokuk  and  Northwestern  Railway 
Company,  75  Iowa  297  (1888) ;  Foley  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and 
Pacific  Railway  Company,  64  Iowa  644  (1884). 

715  Baldwin  vs.  St.  Louis,  Keokuk  and  Northern  Railway  Company, 
68  Iowa  37  (3885). 

716  The  cases  cited  in  this  paragraph  are  collected  in  Labatt's  Em- 

18 


262  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

ployer's   Liability,   Vol.    II,    p.    1587.     Hoben  vs.   Burlington   and 
Missouri  River  Railroad  Company,  20  Iowa  562  (1866). 

'''1'^  Foley  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
64  Iowa  644  (1884). 

7i8Benn  vs.  Null,  65  Iowa  407  (1884). 

■^19  Hathaway  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa  337 
(1894). 

■^20  Hoben  vs.  Burlington  and  Missouri  River  Railroad  Company, 
20  Iowa  562  (1866). 

■^21  Beresford  vs.  American  Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904). 

■^22  Collingwood  vs.  Illinois  and  Iowa  Fuel  Company,  125  Iowa  537 
(1904). 

''■23  Baldwin  vs.  St.  Louis,  Keokuk  and  Northern  Railway  Com- 
pany, 68  Iowa  37  (1885). 

724  Cooper  vs.  Central  Railroad  of  Iowa,  44  Iowa  134  (1876). 

■^25  Struble  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  128  Iowa  158  (1905). 

■^26  Peterson  vs.  Whitebreast  Coal  and  Mining  Company,  50  Iowa 
673  (1879)  ;  HathaAvay  vs.  City  of  Des  Moines,  97  Iowa  333  (1896)  ; 
Foley  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  64 
Iowa  644  (1884). 

"^27  Beresford  vs.  American  Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904)  ; 
McQueeny  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
120  Iowa' 522  (1903)  ;  Vohs  vs.  Shorthill,  130  Iowa  538  (1906). 

728  Newbury  vs.  Getchel  and  Martin  Company,  100  Iowa  441 
(1896) ;  McQueeny  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway 
Company,  120  Iowa  522  (1903) ;  Collingwood  vs.  Illinois  and  Iowa 
Fuel  Company,  125  Iowa  537  (1904) ;  Barnicle  vs.  Connor,  110  Iowa 
238  (1900). 

■^29  Labatt  in  his  Employer's  Liability,  Vol.  II,  p.  1588,  regarded 
the  question  as  still  unsettled  in  1902.  But  the  statement  in  the  text 
appears  to  be  justified  by  the  decisions  in  Beresford  vs.  American 
Coal  Company,  124  Iowa  34  (1904)  ;  Collingwood  vs.  Illinois  and 
Iowa  Fuel  Company,  125  Iowa  537  (1904) ;  and  Vohs  vs.  Shorthill, 
130  Iowa  538  (1906). 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  263 

■^30  Donaldson  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  18 
Iowa  280  (1865). 

■^^i  Brann  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 

53  Iowa  595  (1880). 

^32Theleman  vs.  Moeller,  73  Iowa  108  (1887). 

733  pyne  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 

54  Iowa  223  (1880). 

■^34  Trcka  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  100  Iowa  205  (1896). 

"^^^  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  11 
Iowa  421   (1860). 

■^36  Manning  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway, 
Company,  64  Iowa  240  (1884). 

737  Troughear  vs.  Lower  Vein  Coal  Company,  62  Iowa  576  (1883). 

738  pyne  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
54  Iowa  223  (1880). 

'^^^  See  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company, 
11  Iowa  421   (1860). 

740  Laws  of  Iowa,  1862,  p.  198. 

■^^i  Laws  of  Iowa,  1870,  p.  161. 

"742  Laws  of  Iowa  (Public),  1872,  p.  70. 

■^43  Code  of  1873,  Section  1307. 

■^4*  Code  of  1897,  Section  2071. 

745  Code  of  1873,  Section  1278 :  Code  of  1897,  Section  2039. 

746  Bower  vs.  Burlington  and  Southwestern  Railway  Company,  42 
Iowa  546  (1876).    The  lessor  is  also  liable. 

747  Sloan  vs.  Central  Iowa  Railway  Company,  62  Iowa  728  (1883). 
Liability  attaches  not  to  the  receiver  personally  but  to  the  property 
in  his  hands. 

748  McKnight  vs.  Iowa  and  Minnesota  Railway  Construction  Com- 
pany, 43  Iowa  406  (1876).  Mace  vs.  Boedker  and  Company,  127  Iowa 
721  (1905). 


264  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

■^^^McLeod  vs.  Sioux  City  Traction  Company,  125  Iowa  270 
(1904). 

750  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  49. 

■751  Cmstitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  Ill,  Sec.  29. 

'52  Constitution  of  Iowa,  1857,  Art.  I,  Sec.  6. 

■^ssBucklew  vs.  Central  Iowa  Railway  Company,  64  Iowa  603 
(1884). 

■^s^McAunich  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railway  Company,  20 
Iowa  338  (1866).  Deppe  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Rail- 
way CoDipany,  36  Iowa  52  (1872). 

755  Foley  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
64  Iowa  644  (1884). 

■^56  Larson  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  91  Iowa  81 
(1894) ;  Connors  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company, 
111  Iowa  384  (1900). 

■^57  Stroble  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
70  Iowa  555  (1886). 

758  Butler  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railroad  Company, 
87  Iowa  206  (1893). 

759  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  vs.  Artery, 
137  United  States  507  (1890) ;  Larson  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway 
Company,  91  Iowa  81   (1894). 

760  Deppe  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
36  Iowa  52  (1872).  Frandsen  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific 
Railway  Company,  36  Iowa  372  (1873).  See  the  Court's  remarks 
in  Malone  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway  Com- 
pany, 65  Iowa  417  (1884). 

761  Malone  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  65  Iowa  417  (1884). 

762  Malone  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  65  Iowa  417  (1884) ;  Stroble  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and 
St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  70  Iowa  555  (1886).  ''This  negligence, 
to  render  the  corporation  liable,  must  be  of  an  employe,  and  affect 
a  co-employe,  who  are  in  some  manner  performing  work  for  the  pur- 
pose of  moving  a  train." 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  265 

763  Pierce  vs.  Central  Iowa  Railway  Company,  73  Iowa  140  (1887). 
The  fact  that  the  plaintiff  was  not  employed  in  the  operation  of  the 
road  held  to  be  not  material. 

764  pyne  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
54  Iowa  223  (1880)  ;  Handelun  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and 
Northern  Railway  Company,  72  Iowa  709  (1887) ;  Butler  vs.  Chicago, 
Burlington  and  Quincy  Railroad  Company,  87  Iowa  206  (1893)  ; 
Canon  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company,  101 
Iowa  613  (1897)  ;  Akeson  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Rail- 
way Company,  106  Iowa  54  (1898)  ;  Hughes  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway 
Company,  128  Iowa  207  (1905). 

■^65  Schroeder  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 41  Iowa  344  (1875). 

766  Hughes  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway  Company,  128  Iowa  207 
(1905). 

"^^"^  Akeson  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Com- 
pany, 106  Iowa  54  (1898). 

■^^^  See  Labatt's  Employer's  Liability,  Vol.  II,  p.  2114,  and  cases 
cited. 

■^69  Deppe  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
36  Iowa  52  (1872). 

"^"^^  Nelson  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
73  Iowa  576  (1887). 

■^■^^  Handelun  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Rail- 
way Company,  72  Iowa  709  (1887). 

■^'2  Smith  vs.  Humeston  and  Shenandoah  Railway  Company,  78 
Iowa  583   (1889). 

■^^^  Akeson  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
106  Iowa  54  (1898). 

■^■^^  Butler  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railroad  Company, 
87  Iowa  206  (1893). 

■^■^5  jvTalone  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  65  Iowa  417  (1884). 

"^■^^  Canon  vs.  Chicago,  Milwaukee  and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company, 
101  Iowa  613  (1897). 


266  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

■^■^■^  Hughes  vs.  Iowa  Central  Railway  Company,  128  Iowa  207 
(1905). 

'■^s  Jensen  vs.  Omaha  and  St.  Louis  Railway  Company,  115  Iowa 
404   (1902). 

■^■^9  Pierce  vs.  Central  Iowa  Railway  Company,  73  Iowa  140  (1887). 
Plaintiff  was  upon  a  ladder  leaning  against  the  car  and  was  injured  by 
the  negligent  starting  of  the  train. 

780  pyne  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
54  Iowa  223  (1880).  A  detective  prostrated  by  sun-stroke  and  run 
over  while  in  a  state  of  insensibility. 

■^^^Keatley  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  94  Iowa  685 
(1895).  Employee  injured  by  the  negligent  running  of  a  train  at 
dangerous  speed  across  an  unfinished  bridge. 

"^^2  Haden  vs.  Sioux  City  and  Pacific  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa 
226  (1894).  Section  foreman  stepped  upon  the  track  after  the  first 
section  of  a  train  had  passed  and  was  struck  by  the  second  section, 
the  approach  of  which  he  had  no  reason  to  expect. 

'^^^  Larson  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  91  Iowa  81 
(1894).  Collision  Avith  another  hand  car.  In  Chicago,  Milwaukee 
and  St.  Paul  Railway  Company  vs.  Artery,  137  United  States  507 
(1890)  it  was  said:  '"The  railway  was  being  used  and  operated  in 
the  movement  of  the  hand-car,  quite  as  much  as  if  the  latter  had  been 
a  train  of  cars  drawn  by  a  locomotive." 

■^^^  Potter  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
46  Iowa  399  (1877). 

■^^^  Luce  vs.  Chicago,  St.  Paul,  Minneapolis  and  Omaha  Railway 
Company,  67  Iowa  75  (1885). 

'^^^  Manning  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway 
Company,  64  Iowa  240  (1890). 

'^^'^  Hathaway  vs.  Illinois  Central  Railway  Company,  92  Iowa  337 
(1894). 

■^^^  Matson  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
68  Iowa  22  (1885).  Plaintiff  injured  by  heavy  stone  thrown  by  a 
member  of  the  same  gang.  Dunn  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific 
Railway  Company,  130  Iowa  580   (1906).     Plaintiff  was  struck  by 


NOTES  AND  KEFERENCES  267 

an  iron  bar  which  a  member  of  the  same  gang  had  left  upon  the  track 
and  which  was  hurled  off  by  a  passing  train. 

■^^9  Smith  vs.  Burlington,  Cedar  Rapids  and  Northern  Railway- 
Company,  59  Iowa  73  (1882). 

''^^  Potter  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company, 
46  Iowa  399  (1877). 

"^^^  Hunt  vs.  Chicago  and  Northwestern  Railway  Company,  26  Iowa 

363   (1868). 

792  Murphy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 45  Iowa  661  (1877). 

793  Mumford  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 128  Iowa  685  (1905). 

'^9*  Mumford  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Com- 
pany, 128  Iowa  685  (1905). 

■^95  Donald  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railway  Company, 
93  Iowa  284  (1895). 

■^^6  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1897,  pp.  94- 
196.  Contains  the  hearings  on  the  Temple  Amendment  before  the 
Senate  Committee  in  1897,  also  a  statement  by  the  assistant  superin- 
tendent of  the  Burlington  Relief  Department.  The  application  for 
membership  appears  on  pp.  99-100. 

'^^'^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1897,  pp.  279-280. 

■^^^  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1897,  pp.  791,  792, 
809,  818,  930,  960,  968,  969;  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1897,  pp.  649, 
792,  793,  860,  888,  1105,  1106.  The  Temple  Amendment  affected  Sec- 
tion 38  of  Senate  File,  No.  20,  26th  General  Assembly,  Extra  Session 
(1897). 

■^99  Iowa  Official  Register,  1898,  pp.  135,  138. 

800  The  vote  in  the  Senate  was  39  to  4 ;  in  the  House,  96  to  1. 
Journal  of  the  Senate,  1898,  p.  342;  Journal  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, 1898,  p.  529. 

801  Laws  of  loiva,  1898,  p.  33 ;  Supplement  of  1907,  Section  2071. 

802  McGuire  vs.  Chicago,  Burlington  and  Quincy  Railroad  Com- 
pany, 131  Iowa  340  (1906). 


268  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

803  One  hundred  and  fifty-eight  deaths  and  3,370  injuries  to  em- 
ployees from  industrial  accidents  were  reported  in  Iowa  in  the  year 
1906.     How  many  occurred  cannot  be  stated. 

^^'^  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  74,  p.  120. 

805  Clark  in  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No. 
74,  p.  120. 

806  Martin  vs.  Des  Moines  Edison  Light  Company,  131  Iowa  724 
(1906).  "The  risks  thus  arising  [from  dangers  incident  to  the 
service]  the  servant  takes  upon  himself  and  his  wages  are  considered 
to  be  his  full  compensation  for  the  danger  thus  incurred  as  well  as 
for  the  actual  labor  of  his  hands." 

807  Sullivan  vs.  Mississippi  and  Missouri  Railroad  Company,  11 
Iowa  421  (1860). 

808Farwell  vs.  Boston  and  Worcester  Rail  Road  Corporation,  4 
Metcalf  49. 

809  Kroy  vs.  Chicago,  Rock  Island  and  Pacific  Railway  Company 
32  Iowa  357  (1871). 

810  gee  Justice  Beck's  remarks  in  Patton  vs.  Central  Iowa  Rail- 
way Company,  73  Iowa  306  (1887). 

8iiLabatt's  Employer's  Liability,  Section  475. 

812  Shearman  and  Redfield's  Negligence,  p.  vi. 

CHAPTER  IX 

813  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  p.  89 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  1642. 

814  Laws  of  Iowa,  1888,  p.  80 ;  Code  of  1897,  Sections  5027-5028. 

815  Code  of  1851,  Section  2758 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  5059. 

816  Jjaws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  63 ;  Code  of  1897,  Sections  5049-5051. 

817  Beebe  vs.  Tolerton  and  Stetson  Company,  117  Iowa  593  (Cigar- 
markers'  label). 

818  For  an  account  of  some  of  these  practices  see  Conner's  Free 
Public  Employment  Offices  in  the  United  States,  in  the  Bulletin  of  the 
United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  68,  p.  16. 

819  Conner's  Free  Public  Employment  Offices  in  the  United  States, 
in  the  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  68,  p.  3. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  269 

^^'^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1891,  pp.  2-3, 

^21  Shambaugh's  Messages  and  Proclamations  of  the  Governors 
of  Iowa,  Vol.  VI,  p.  318. 

^^2  House  File,  No.  49;  Senate  File,  No.  279,  24th  General  As- 
sembly (1892). 

^^^  House  File,  No.  160;  Senate  File,  No.  78,  25th  General  As- 
sembly (1894). 

^24  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1895,  p.  14. 

^25  The  name  suggested  by  Doctor  Conner. 

^26  Conner's  Free  Public  Employment  Offices  in  the  United  States, 
in  the  Bulletin  of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  Labor,  No.  68,  pp. 
91-113;  Official  Directory  of  the  Iowa  Federation  of  Labor,  1906,  p. 
133. 

^27  Journals  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives,  1906. 
House  File,  No.  241,  and  Senate  File,  No.  176,  31st  General  Assembly. 

828  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  26 ;  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section 
700 

829  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  128 ;  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section 
2477h-24771. 

830  Based  upon  the  records  in  the  city  clerks '  offices. 

831  Laws  of  Iowa,  1892,  p.  58 ;  Code  of  1897,  Section  1123. 

832  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  219. 

833  Code  of  1897,  Section  1535. 

834  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1885,  p.  363. 

^^^  Senate  Files,  Nos.  1,  163,  183,  262,  324;  House  Files,  Nos.  37, 
343,  381,  444,  21st  General  Assembly  (1886). 

836  Laws  of  Iowa,  1886,  pp.  21-25. 

837  Report  of  the  Code  Commission  to  the  Twenty -sixth  General  As- 
sembly, p.  116. 

838  See  table  in  the  Third  Special  Report  of  the  United  States 
Commissioner  of  Labor,  p.  5. 

839  Statement  to  writer  by  Mr.  Edwin  Perry  of  Oskaloosa,  former 
State  Secretary  of  the  Knights  of  Labor. 


270  HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 

^^^  The  final  vote  was :  in  the  Senate  26  yeas,  7  nays ;  in  the  House, 
59  yeas,  23  nays.— Journals  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives, 1884,  Senate  File,  No.  83. 

841  Laws  of  Iowa,  1884,  p.  134. 

«42  Iowa  Official  Register,  1907-8,  p.  164. 

843  Laws  of  loiva,  1894,  p.  127. 

844  Laws  of  Iowa,  1896,  p.  89. 

845  Laws  of  lotva,  1904,  p.  92. 

846  Laws  of  Iowa,  1907,  p.  127. 

847  Laws  of  loiva,  1904,  p.  92 ;  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section 
2477. 

848  Laws  of  Iowa,  1902,  p.  61 ;  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section 
2470. 

849  See  p.  106. 

850  See  p.  99. 

851  See  p.  139. 

852  See  p.  190. 

853  Of  19,500  blanks  sent  to  working  men  and  women  in  1894,  only 
4,160  were  returned  properly  filled  out. — Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau 
of  Labor  Statistics,  1895,  p.  8. 

^^'^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lahor  Statistics,  1887,  p.  196; 
1895,  p.  9. 

855  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lahor  Statistics,  1895,  pp.  20-22. 

856  Laws  of  Iowa,  1896,  p.  89. 

857  See  p.  105. 

858  Journal  of  the  Senate,  1896,  p.  858. 

859  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  1896,  pp.  913,  922, 
955.    See  also  the  Iowa  State  Register,  April  3  and  April  17,  1896. 

860  Code  of  1897,  Section  2474. 

861  Report  of  the  Attorney  General,  1904,  pp.  137-139. 

^^"^  Report  of  the  Iowa  Bureau  of  Lahor  Statistics,  1901-1902,  p. 
386. 


NOTES  AND  REFERENCES  271 

^^^  See  Report  of  the  loxva  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  1893,  p.  7. 

*^*  The  first  eleven  reports  were  printed  in  odd  numbered  years ; 
the  twelfth  report  was  issued  in  1906,  and  subsequent  reports  will 
appear  in  even-numbered  years.    Laivs  of  Iowa,  1906,  p.  71. 

^65  Code  Supplement  of  1907,  Section  125. 

866  The  report  for  1905  contains  data  for  882  establishments  of 
all  kinds,  employing  35,551  persons;  the  United  States  census  of 
manufactures  the  same  year  shows  4,785  manufacturing  establish- 
ments, employing  49,481  persons. 

867  Tribunal  of  voluntary  arbitration.     See  p.  191. 

868  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  180. 

869  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  141. 

870  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  200. 

871  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  117. 

872  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  175. 

873  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  118. 

874  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  41. 

875  Laws  of  Iowa,  1909,  p.  140. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Accidents,  report  of,  in  mines,  59-63; 
number  of,  in  coal  mines,  60;  cause 
of,  in  coal  mines,  62-63;  on  railroads, 
81-82,    84-85,    88-92 

Anamosa,  establishment  of  penitentiary 
at,  24;  change  of  penitentiary  at,  to 
reformatory,  25 

Apprenticeship,  early  laws  regulating,  2 

Arbitration,  provisions  for,  in  labor  dis- 
putes, 191-192. 

Bailey,  W.  H.,  child  labor  bill  drafted 
by,  123,  143;  revision  of  bill  drafted 
by,  136 

Bailey,  Mrs.  W.  H.,  member  of  child 
labor  committee,  122 

Bakeries,  sanitary  conditions  in,  104; 
need  of  law  regulating,  105;  increase 
in  business  of,  in  Iowa,   105 

Bealer,  E.  J.  C,  140 

Belgium,  loss  of  life  in  coal  mines  of, 
61,  62 

Blacklisting,  law  prohibiting,   186 

Blackmore,  Albin  C,  bill  introduced  by, 
14 

Board  of  Control,  State,  25;  powers 
given  to,  28;  attitude  of,  toward  con- 
vict labor,  31 

Board  of  Health,  State,  regulations  pre- 
scribed by,  50 

Boies,  Horace,  employment  agency  fa- 
vored by,  50 

Boiler  inspection,  laws  relative  to,  97- 
98 

Bowling  alleys,  child  labor  in,  139 

Box  factories,  violations  of  child  labor 
law  in,  143 

Boycotting,  law  providing  punishment 
for,  187 

Brakes,  accidents  due  to  old  style  of, 
82-83;    law  prescribing  power,   83-84 


Brigham,  Edward  D.,  statistics  gath- 
ered by,  100;  report  of,  relative  to 
child  labor,  115,  121,  122;  member  of 
child  labor  committee,  135;  letter  to, 
relative  to  fire  escapes,  237;  address 
by,  240. 

Broom  works,  violations  of  child  labor 
law  in,  143 

Brown  and  Company,  contract  lor  con- 
vict labor  made  by,  20 

Bruce,  James  E.,  amendment  offered 
by,  141 

Buffalo  (New  York),  experiments  with 
automatic  couplers  at,   78 

Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  Iowa,  es- 
tablishment of,  3,  193;  personnel  of, 
193;  scope  of  work  of,  194-195; 
methods  of,  in  collecting  statistics, 
195-200;  inquiry  blank  sent  out  by, 
197-199;  compulsory  power  of,  200; 
reports  of,  200-205;  subjects  treated 
in  reports  of,  202-203;  need  of  labor 
bulletin  published  by,  203;  recom- 
mendations to  legislature  by,  204; 
commissioners  of,  204 ;  value  and  fur- 
ther needs  of,  204-205 

Burlington,   school  attendance  in,   242 

Burlington  Voluntary  Relief  Depart- 
ment, organization  of,  178 ;  features 
of,  179-181;  validity  of  contracts  of, 
upheld,  181;  contracts  of,  invalidated 
by  statute,  182 

Button  Company,  Iowa,  contract  for 
convict  labor  made  by,  22 

Button  factories,  child  labor  in,  133; 
violation  of  child  labor  law  in,  143. 

Canning  factories,  child  labor  in,  133, 
140-141,  143;  violations  of  child  la- 
bor law  iQ,  143;  growth  of  business 
of,  243. 


276 


HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


Car  Builders  Association,  National 
Master,  automatic  coupler  approved 
by,  78 

Care,  standards  of,  152 

Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington,  ex- 
penses of  collecting  data  borne  by,  x 

Carstensen,  Theodore,  136 

Cedar  Eapids,  school  attendance  in,  241 

Chair  Company,  Fort  Madison,  contract 
for  convict  labor  made  by,  21;  desire 
of,  for  extension  of  contract,  26 

Chesire-Dowell  Bill,  189 

Chicago,  Burlington  &  Quincy  Railroad, 
relief  department  maintained  by,  178- 
181 

Child  labor,  need  and  justification  of 
legislation  relative  to,  110;  tardiness 
of  Iowa  legislation  on  subject  of, 
111;  regulation  of,  in  mines,  111-112; 
earliest  champion  of,  in  Iowa,  112; 
early  attempts  to  secure  laws  on  sub- 
ject of,  112-113;  extent  of,  in  Iowa, 
in  1888,  113;  growth  of,  in  Iowa,  114- 
116 ;  conditions  of,  in  Iowa  com- 
pared with  other  States,  115-116; 
provisions  of  factory  act  of  1902 
relative  to,  116-117;  method  of  evad- 
ing law  relative  to,  117;  effect  of 
compulsory  education  on,  117-121; 
agitation  of  question  of,  1900-1906, 
121-141;  organizations  supporting 
movement  for  laws  regulating,  122; 
bill  for  act  to  regulate  employment 
of,  123-130;  objections  to  bill  regu- 
lating, 130-135;  defeat  of  bill  regu- 
lating, 131 ;  desciplinary  and  educa- 
tional value  of,  131-132;  physiologi- 
cal evils  of,  132;  relation  of,  to 
farming,  132-133;  relation  of,  to 
canning  and  button  industries,  133; 
unprofitableness  of,  133-134;  poor- 
widow  argument  for,  134;  causes 
leading  to,  134-135;  leaflets  on  sub- 
ject of,  135;  text  of  law  relative  to, 
137-139;  in  bowling  alleys,  139;  not 
prohibited  in  quarries,  140;  employ- 
ment  of,  in  canning  factories,    140; 


enforcement  of  law  relative  to,  142- 
143;  defects  of  Iowa  law  relative  to, 
143-147;  conclusions  relative  to,  in 
Iowa,  147;  recent  amendments  to  law 
regulating,   209-210 

Child  Labor  Committee,  Iowa,  forma- 
tion of,  135;  executive  committee  of, 
135;  efforts  of,  to  secure  law,  136 

Child  Labor  Committee,  National,  135 

Cigar  shops,  violation  of  child  labor 
law  in,  143 

Citizens'  Industrial  Alliance,  opposi- 
tion of,  to  employment  agency  bill, 
190 

Claims,  employees',  preference  of,  11-12 

Clary,  T.  C,   136 

Clinton,  school  attendance  in,  242 

Coal,  weighing  of,  63-64;  screening  of, 
65-66 

Coal  mining,  beginning  of,  in  Iowa,  2; 
dangers  of,  33;  development  of,  in 
Iowa,  33-35 

Coal   Mine   Explosions   Commission,   52 

Coal  Operators'  Association,  Iowa,  in- 
fluence of,  in  legislation,  5;  refer- 
ence to,  52 

CoflEun,  L.  S.,  services  of,  in  securing 
safety  appliances  on  railroads,  79,  83 

Commissioner  of  Labor,  inspection  of 
factories  by,  95,  98;  recommendations 
by,  96,  97,  107-108,  144;  power  of, 
relative  to  fire  escapes,  99-100;  acci- 
dents reported  to,  101;  work  of,  in 
improving  conditions  in  factories, 
102-103;  child  labor  bill  approved 
by,  123;  duty  of,  to  enforce  child 
labor  law,  139;  board  of  arbitration 
favored  by,  191;  salary  of,  193 

Common  Law,  rules  of,  on  employers' 
liability,  148;  statutory  modification 
of,  166-167;  fellow-servant  doctrine 
in,  168;  defects  of,  relative  to  em- 
ployers' liability,  184-185 

Connecticut,  volume  on  labor  legisla- 
tion in,  x;  child  labor  laws  in,  112 


INDEX 


277 


Cornier,  J.  E.,  employment  agency  bill 
approved  by,  190 

Consumers'  League,  National,   123 

Contract  system  in  convict  labor,  oppo- 
sition to,  26,  28;  merits  of,  28;  de- 
fects of,   28-29 

Convict  labor,  laws  relative  to,  18-32 ; 
character  of,  in  Territory  of  Iowa, 
18-19;  contracts  for,  19-22,  25;  ar- 
ticles manufactured  by,  19-22,  25; 
influence  of  hard  times  on  contracts 
for,  21;  task  system  in,  22-23;  price 
received  by  State  for,  23;  profit  of, 
to  contractors,  23;  disadvantages  of, 
23-24;  character  of,  at  Anamosa,  25, 
26;  permanent  educative  value  of, 
26;  systems  of,  in  Iowa,  26;  contract 
systei  1  in,  26,  28,  29 ;  conditions  of, 
in  Iowa,  27-28;  effect  of,  upon  free 
labor  and  outside  markets,  28,  30 ; 
effect  cf,  upon  prisoners,  28,  29,  30; 
public  i  'Count  system  in,  29-32;  plan 
to  have  "^tate  printing  done  by,  31- 
32 

Convicts,  necessity  of  employment  for, 
27;  points  to  be  considered  in  pro- 
viding employment  for,  27 

Cooperage  Company,  American,  con- 
tract for  convict  labor  made  by,  25; 
desire  of,  for  renewal  of  contract, 
26;   contract  of,   extended,   212 

Cotton  Belt,  conditions  in,  as  regards 
child  labor,  115 

Council  Bluiffs,  school  attendance  in, 
242 

Couplers,  old  type  of,  78 ;  invention  of 
automatic,  78;  law  prescribing  use  of 
automatic,  79;  character  of,  used  in 
Iowa,  80;  accidents  due  to  use  of,  80- 
82 

Courtright,  O.  B.,  136 

Crossley,  James  J.,  bill  introduced  by, 
14 

Cummings,  B.  F.,  136 

Cummins,  Mrs.  A.  B.,  member  of  child 
labor   committee,    135 
19 


Damages,  liability  for,   in  mines,  57-58 

Davenport,  school  attendance  in,  241 

Deemer,  Horace  E.,  child  labor  bill  ap- 
proved by,  123 

Deemer,  Mrs.  Horace  E.,  member  of 
child  labor  committee,  122 

DeMar,  J.   C,  243 

Des  Moines,   school  attendance   in,   241 

Dodge,  O.  B.,  contract  for  convict  la- 
bor made  by,  20;   failure  of,  21 

Dodge,  W.  W.,  efforts  of,  to  secure 
child  labor  law,  112-113;  bill  intro- 
duced by,  for  protection  of  union 
label,  187 

Dowell,  C.  C,  child  labor  bill  intro- 
duced by,  130;  reference  to,  136;  let- 
ter from,  245 

Downey,  E.  H.,  vii ;  author 's  preface 
by,  ix;  position  held  by,  x 

Dubuque,  history  of  lead  mines  at,  222; 
school  attendance  in,  241 

Economic  History  Series,  Iowa,  pur- 
pose of,  vii 

Education,  compulsory,  recommenda- 
tions for,  117;  laws  providing,  117- 
118;  workings  of,  118-121,  241-242 

Edwards,  Alba  M.,  book  by,  x 

Employees,  laws  relative  to  preference 
of  claims  of,  11-12;  responsibility  of 
employer  for,  149;  relation  of  em- 
ployer and,  150-151;  duties  of  em- 
ployer toward,  152-155;  contributory 
negligence  of,  156-159;  assumption  of 
risks  by,  159-167,  183-184;  injury  to, 
due  to  negligence  of  fellow-servant, 
168 ;  doctrine  of  vice  principalship  in 
relation  to,  169-171;  railway,  right 
of,  to  recovery  for  injuries,  175-178, 
179,  182,  184-185;  railway,  relief  de- 
partment for,  178-181;  need  of  better 
protection  for,  184-185;  blacklisting 
of,  prohibited,  186;  right  of,  to  vote, 
190-191;  legislation  favorable  to,  210 

Employers,  penalties  for  violation  of 
child  labor  law  by,  138-139;  liability 


278 


HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


of,  for  damages,  149;  relation  of 
employees  and,  150-151;  duties  of, 
151-152,  155;  knowledge  of  danger- 
ous condition  on  part  of,  151-152; 
defenses  of,  155-171;  negligence  of, 
and  fellow-servant,  168 ;  non-dele- 
gable  duties  of,  169;  inquiry  blanks 
sent  to,  197-199 

Employers'   liability,    law   of,   148-185 
rules  of  Common  Law  covering,  148 
doctrines      of,     in      Iowa,      148-149 
etandards  of  care  used  in  determin- 
ing,   152;    relation     of     contributory 
negligence    to,    156-159;    relation    of 
assumption   of  risks  to,   159-167;   re- 
lation  of   fellow-servant   doctrine   to, 
167-168;    vice    principalship    in    rela- 
tion  to,    169-170;    departmental    doc- 
trine in,  170-171;  law  relative  to,  on 
railways,  171;  defects  of  law  of,  184- 
185;    recent  amendments   to   law   of, 
210-212 

Employment  agencies,  necessity  for, 
187-188;  arguments  for,  188;  efforts 
to  secure  law  on  subject  of,  188-190; 
laws  relative  to,  190 

Ensign,  Forest  C,  article  by,  239,  242 

Examiners,  State  Board  of,  45 

Exemption  of  wages,  laws  relative  to, 
12-15;  views  on  subject  of,  13-15 

Explosions,  precautions  to  prevent,  in 
mines,  51-53 

Explosives,  conveyance  and  storage  of, 
53-54 


Factories,  poor  conditions  in,  95;  May- 
tag bill  providing  for  safety  and 
comfort  in,  95-96 ;  protection  of  life 
and  limb  in,  96-101;  guards  on  dan- 
gerous machinery  in,  96-97;  boiler 
inspection  in,  97-98 ;  fire  escapes  on, 
98-100;  report  of  accidents  in,  100- 
101;  protection  of  health  in,  101- 
105;  disposal  of  dust  in,  103;  heat, 
light  and  ventilation  of,  103-104;  in- 
spection of,  105-106;  enforcement  of 
law  relative  to,    106-107;    recommen- 


dations of  Commissioner  of  Labor  rel- 
ative to,  107-108;  progress  of  Iowa 
legislation  relative  to,  108;  need  of 
more  adequate  regulation  of,  109; 
child  labor  in,  prohibited,  137 

Factory  Inspector,  salary  of,  193 ;  pro- 
vision  for   second,    212 

Farming,  relation  of  child  labor  to,  132- 
133 

Farming  Tool  Company,  Iowa,  contract 
for  convict  labor  made  by,  20 

Farnam,  Henry  W.,  acknowledgments 
to,  X 

Federation  of  Labor,  Iowa,  formation 
of,  3;  work  of,  3-4;  bill  defeated 
through  efforts  of,  13;  opposition  of, 
to  button  contract,  22 ;  opposition  of, 
to  contract  system,  26;  efforts  of,  to 
secure  legislation,  73,  93;  child  labor 
laws  supported  by,  122,  131;  leaf- 
lets on  child  labor  issued  by,  135; 
agitation  for  employment  agencies  re- 
vived by,   189;  history  of,  217 

Federation  of  Women's  Clubs,  move- 
ment for  child  labor  law  supported 
by,  122,  123,  131 

Fellow-servant  doctrine,  167-168;  inap- 
plicability   of,    171 

Fire  escapes,  provision  for,  in  factories, 
98-100;  defects  of  law  relative  to,  in 
Iowa,  100;  indifference  of  officers  in 
regard  to,  237 

Flenniken,  J.  C,  139 

Fletcher,  Mrs.  T.  J.,  member  of  child 
labor  committee,  135 

Fort  Dodge,  gypsum  mines  near,  71-72 

Fort  Madison,  location  of  penitentiary 
at,  18;  disadvantages  of  convict  la- 
bor at,  24 

Fort  Madison  Chair  Company,  contract 
for   convict   labor   made   by,    21 

France,  loss  of  life  in  coal  mines  of, 
61-62 

German  Imperial  Insurance  Office,  sta- 
tistics gathered  by,  183 


INDEX 


279 


Great  Britain,  loss  of  life  in  coal  mines 
of,  61 

Greenwood,  C.  G.,  bill  introduced  by, 
14 

Greene,  Robert  A.,  bill  introduced  by, 
13,  14 

Gypsum  mines,  development  of,  in  Iowa, 
71;  character  of,  71-73;  efforts  to  ex- 
tend mine  law  over,  73-74;  need  of 
law  regulating,  74-75 

Hale,  Thomas,  and  Company,  contract 
for  convict  labor  made  by,  20 

Hallam,  Mrs.  J.  C,  member  of  child  la- 
bor committee,  135 

Hart,  William  S.,  bill  introduced  by, 
136,   140,    143;    reference   to,   243 

Headley,  W.  D.,  contract  for  convict 
labor  made  by,   19,  20 

Hoisting  engineers,  qualifications  of,  45 

Hoisting  machinery,  safe  guards  on,  43- 
44 

Hours  of  labor,  for  railway  trainmen, 
86-88;  for  children,  136;  on  public 
roads,    191 

Huiskamp  Company,  contract  for  con- 
vict labor  made  by,  21,  22 

Hutchins,  Edward  R.,  information  on 
child  labor  gathered  by,  113 

Illinois,  child  labor  laws  in,  123;  can- 
ning industry  in,  243 
Illuminants  in  coal  mines,  49-50 
Industries,  character  of,  in  Iowa,  1,  2 
Iowa,  Territorial  history  of,  1 ;  indus- 
trial development  of,  2;  growth  of 
labor  legislation  in,  1-6;  character  of 
legislation  in,  2,  3;  labor  organiza- 
tions in,  3,  4 ;  advantages  of,  in  labor 
legislation,  5 ;  mistakes  of,  in  labor 
legislation,  5;  convict  labor  in,  18- 
32;  development  of  mining  in,  33- 
35;  fatality  in  coal  mines  of,  60,  61, 
62;  tardiness  of  child  labor  legisla- 
tion in,  111;  immigrants  from  Europe 
in,  111;  growth  of  child  labor  in,  114- 
116;    conditions  in,   as   regards  child 


labor,  115-116;  miscellaneous  labor 
legislation  in,  186-192 

Iowa,  Territory  of,  labor  legislation  in, 
1,  2;  legislation  in,  relative  to  me- 
chanics' liens,  8;  convict  labor  legis- 
lation in,  18-19 

Iowa  Branch  of  the  American  Federa- 
tion of  Labor.  (See  Federation  of 
Labor) 

Jackson,  Burt  T.,  statement  by,  220 

Jackson,  John  C,  136 

Johnson,    Trebilcock    and,   contract   for 

convict  labor  made  by,  20;  successors 

to,  21 

Kelly,  Florence,  123 

King's  Daughters,  movement  for  child 
labor  law  supported  by,  122 

Knights  of  Labor,  organization  of,  in 
Iowa,  3 ;  replacement  of,  3 ;  refer- 
ence to,  35,  79;  efforts  of,  to  secure 
legislation,  67 ;  efforts  of,  to  secure 
child  labor  law,  112;  Bureau  of  La- 
bor established  at  suggestion  of,  193; 
absence  of  records  of,  217 

Labor  Commissioners  of  the  peniten- 
tiary, powers  of,  21 

Labor  disputes,  board  of  arbitration 
for,  191-192 

Labor  legislation,  method  of  treating, 
ix;  scarcity  of  materials  on,  ix; 
scope  of,  1 ;  need  of,  1 ;  character  of, 
in  Iowa,  1;  growth  of,  in  Iowa,  1-6; 
difficulty  in  securing,  3 ;  organiza- 
tions supporting,  3;  interests  op- 
posed to,  4-5;  advantages  of  Iowa  in 
enacting,  5;  mistakes  of  Iowa  in,  5; 
importance  of  study  of,  6;  first  in- 
stance of,  in  Territory  of  Iowa,  8; 
miscellaneous,  in  Iowa,  186-192;  re- 
cent, 209-213;  character  of  recent, 
213 

Labor  organizations,  incorporation  of, 
186 


280 


HISTORY  OP  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


Labor  Statistics,  Iowa  Bureau  of, 
(See  Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics) 

Laundries,  child  labor  in,  prohibited, 
137 

Lead  mining,  history  of,  in  Iowa,  33, 
222 

Legislative  Reference  Department,  need 
of,  in  Iowa,  5-6 

Liability  (See  employers'  liability  and 
railway  liability  act) 

Lindsay,  Samuel  McCune,  work  of,  in 
Iowa,  135 

Lister,  G.  W.,  child  labor  bill  introduced 
by,  122 

Loan  Association  of  New  York,  Provi- 
dent,  17 

Loan  company,  advertisement  of,  16 

Loan  sharks,  methods  of,  16-17,  220; 
remedy  for  evils  of,  17 

Loos,  Isaac  A.,  acknowledgments  to, 
ix;  chairman  of  child  labor  commit- 
tee, 135;  article  by,  239 

Lost  Creek  Mine,  disaster  at,  50,  61 

Machinery,  dangerous,  guards  on,  96- 
97;  prohibition  of  operation  of,  by 
children,   116-117 

Maine,  T.  C,  229 

Maine,  child  labor  laws  in,  112 

Manufacturing,  development  of,  in 
Iowa,  2 

Manufacturers'  Association,  State,  in- 
fluence of,  in  legislation,  5;  opposi- 
tion of,  to  employment  agency  bill, 
190 

Marston,  Charles  L.,  letter  from,  238 

Maryland,  canning  industry  in,   243 

Massachusetts,  law  requiring  use  of  au- 
tomatic couplers  in,  79;  child  labor 
laws  in,  112,  123;  labor  bulletin  pub- 
lished in,  203 

Master  (see  employer) 

Maytag,  Fred  L.,  factory  bill  introduced 
by,  95 

Mechanics'  liens,  early  laws  providing 
for,  2;   laws  relative  to,  7-11;   char- 


acter   and    operation   of,    10-11;     on 
railways,  93-94 
Merchants'    Association,    Retail,    influ- 
ence of,  in  legislation,  5;   efforts  of, 
to    secure    modification   of    wage    ex- 
emption law,  13-14 
Michigan,  law  requiring  use  of  automat- 
ic couplers  in,  70 
Michigan,    Territory   of,   legislation    in, 
relative  to  mechanics'   liens,   7;   con- 
vict labor  legislation  in,  18 
Mills,  child  labor  in,  prohibited,  137 
Mining,  development  of,  in  Iowa,  33-35 
Mine  exits,  laws  relative  to,  41-43 
Mine  foremen,  qualifications  of,  54 
Mine  Inspectors,  powers  and  duties  of, 
36-39;   work  accomplished  by,  37,  38, 
39;    rejiorts   of,   40;    mine   maps   de- 
posited with,  40;  Board  of  Examiners 
for,  54;  powers  of,  to  enforce  safety 
requirements,  56-57 
Mine   labor   legislation,    importance   of, 

33;   development  of,  35-36 
Mine  maps,  law  relative  to,  40 
Mine    operators,    duty     of,     to     provide 
map   of  mines,  40 ;    duty  of,   relative 
to  timbering,  45 
Mine  timbering,  laws  relative  to,  45 
Mine  Workers  of  America,   United,  or- 
ganization of,  in  Iowa,  4 ;  efforts  of, 
to    secure    legislation,    51,    53;     ref- 
erence to,  68 ;  efforts  of,  to  keep  chil- 
dren out  of  mines,  112 
Miners,  laws  protecting  health  and  safe- 
ty of,  41-56;  laws  to  prevent  exploita- 
tion of,  63-71;   truck  system  in  rela- 
tion  to,   67-69;    homes   of,   69;    semi- 
monthly payment  of,  69-71;   example 
of  scrip  used  in  payment  of,  229 
Miners    of    the    State    of    Iowa,   Amal- 
gamated Association  of,  organization 
of,  35;  joint  convention  called  by,  36; 
reference  to,  67 
Miners '  lien  law,  35,  63 
Mines,  coal,  laws  relative  to   operation 
of,  33-75;  signaling  in,  43;  laws  rel- 


INDEX 


281 


ative   to   hoisting   machinery   in,    43- 
44;    qualifications    of    hoisting    engi- 
neers in,  45;  ventilation  in,  laws  rel- 
ative to,  46-47 ;  methods  of,  47-49 ;  il- 
luminants  in,  49-50;  shot  firing  in,  50- 
53;    conveyance   and   storage    of   ex- 
plosives in,  53-54;  first  aid  to  injured 
in,  55 ;  need  of  wash  rooms  in  connec- 
tion with,  55;  prohibition  of  danger- 
ous acts  in,  55-56;  power  of  inspector 
to  enforce  safety  requirements  in,  56- 
57;   liability  for   damages  in,  57-58; 
exception  of  small,  58;  report  of  ac- 
cidents in,  59-63;  comparative  loss  of 
life  in,  61;  laws  relative  to  weighing 
coal  at,  63-64;  law  relative  to  screen- 
ing coal  at,  65-66 ;  regulation  of  child 
labor  in,  111-112;  child  labor  in,  pro- 
hibited, 137;  child  labor  law  enforced 
in,  143;   accidents  in,  225 
Mines,     gypsum,     development     of,     in 
Iowa,  71;  character  of,  71-73;  efforts 
to  extend  mine  law  over,  73-74;  need 
of  law  regulating,  74-75 
Minors,  law  relative  to  wages  of,  17 
Muscatine,  child  labor  at,   146 

Negligence,  definition  of,  149;  doctrine 
of,  in  Iowa,  149-150;  contributory,  of 
employees,  156-159;  concurrent,  of 
master  and  fellow-servant,  168;  com- 
parative, rule  of,  established,  211 
New  Jersey,  child  labor  laws  in,  112 
New  York,  law  requiring  use  of  auto- 
matic couplers  in,  79;  fire  escape  law 
of,  100;  child  labor  laws  in,  112,  123; 
labor  bulletin  published  in,  203;  can- 
ning industry  in,  243 

Obstructions,  overhead,  on  railroads,  85- 
86 

Ohio,  child  labor  laws  in,  112,  123;  pub- 
lic employment  agencies  in,   188 

Ottumwa,  school  attendance  in,  242 

Owens,  D.  D.,  attention  called  to  Iowa 
coal  fields  by,  33 


Packing  houses,  child  labor  in,  prohib- 
ited, 137;  violations  of  child  labor 
law  in,  143 

Parents,  penalties  imposed  on,  for  per- 
mitting child  labor,  138-139 

Peck,  Mrs.  Maria  Purdy,  member  of 
child  labor  committee,  122 

Penitentiary  (Anamosa),  establishment 
of,  24;  employment  of  prisoners  at, 
24,  25;  change  of,  to  reformatory,  25 

Penitentiary  (Fort  Madison),  estab- 
lishment of,  18;  disadvantages  of 
convict  labor  at,  24 

Pennsylvania,  child  labor  laws  in,  112; 
conditions  in,  as  regards  child  labor, 
115 

Perry,  Edwin,  information  furnished 
by,  217,  269;   letter  from,  223 

Petroleum  Products,  Inspector  of,  duty 

of,  50 
Printing,  State,  plan  relative  to,  31-32 
Prison  labor  (see  convict  labor) 
Public  account  system  in  convict  labor, 
merits  and  demerits  of,  29-32 

Quarries,  child  labor  in,  140 

Railway  cars,  automatic  couplers  on,  77- 
82;  accidents  in  coupling,  81-82; 
power  brakes  on,  82-85 

Railroad  Commissioners,  State  Board  of, 
establishment  of,  76;  reference  to,  79, 
80;  regulations  of,  relative  to  over- 
head obstructions,  86;  duty  of,  to  en- 
force law,  88 ;  investigation  of  rail- 
way accidents  by,  88-92 

Railway  employees,  accidents  to,  76-78, 
81-82,  84-85,  88-92;  hours  of  service 
of,  86-88 ;  right  of,  to  recovery  for  in- 
juries, 175-178,  179,  182,  184-185;  re- 
lief department  for,  178-181 

Railway  liability  act,  171-182;  judicial 
interpretation  of,  172-173,  175;  ob- 
jections to,  173-174;  persons  within 
protection  of,  176-178;  plan  to  evade, 
178-181;  Temple  amendment  to,  182; 


282 


HISTORY  OF  LABOR  LEGISLATION  IN  IOWA 


constitutionality  of,  182 ;  amendment 
to,  211 

Railways,  coming  of,  to  Iowa,  2 ;  over- 
head obstructions  on,  85-86;  me- 
chanics' liens  on,  93-94;  amendment 
to  law  relative  to  safety  appliances 
on,  212 

Reformatory  (Anamosa),  penitentiary 
converted  into,  25 ;  contract  labor 
prohibited  at,  25;  employment  of 
prisoners  at,  25-26,  212 

Rhode  Island,  child  labor  laws  in,  112; 
conditions  in,  as  regards  child  labor, 
115 

Risks,  assumption  of,  159 ;  ordinary, 
159-161;  extraordinary,  161-166;  sta- 
tutory modification  of  assumption  of, 
166-167;  assumption  of,  basis  of  doc- 
trine of,  183-184;  assumption  of,  re- 
cent acts  on  subject  of,     211 

Roads,  public,  hours  of  labor  on,  191 

Safety  requirements,  in  mines,  enforce- 
ment of,  56-63 

Scale  laws,  63-64 

Screen  law,  65-66 

Servants   (see  employees) 

Shambaugh,  Benj.  F.,  editor's  preface 
by,  vii;  acknowledgments  to,  ix 

Shot  firing,  laws  relative  to,  50-52; 
methods  of,  52 

Signaling,  law  relative  to,  in  mines,  43 

Sioux  City,  school  attendance  in,  241 

Slaughter  houses,  child  labor  in,  pro- 
hibited, 137 

Small,  A.  J.,  acknowledgments  to,  x 

Sovereign,  James  R.,  employment  agen- 
cy favored  by,  188;  successor  to,  189 

Stores,  protection  of  health  in,  101- 
105;  child  labor  in,  prohibited,  137; 
violations  of  child  labor  law  in,  143 

Storms,  A.  B.,  member  of  child  labor 
committee,  135 

Street  cars,  laws  relative  to  vestibules 
on,  92-93,  212 

Street-vending,  need  of  regulation  of, 
144-146 


Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction, 
recommendation  of,  117 

Task  system,  workings  of,  22,  23 

Teachers'  Association,  State,  move- 
ment for  child  labor  law  supported 
by,  122 

Telfer,  D.  A.,  229 

Temple   Amendment,    182 

Trebileock  and  Johnson,  contract  for 
convict  labor  made  by,  20;  succes- 
sors to,  21 

Tri-City  Jews'  Associated  Charities,  17 

Truck  law,  66-69 

Union  labels,  protection  of,   187 
United  States,  loss  of  life  in  coal  mines 

of,  61 
Uriek,  A.  L.,  bill  defeated  through  ef- 
forts of,  13;  reference  to,  131;  mem- 
ber  of    child   labor   committee,    135; 
statement  made  by,  222 

Ventilation,  in  mines,  46-49;  in  fac- 
tories, 103-104 

Vice  principalship,  doctrine  of,  169; 
tests  of,  169-171 

Wage  legislation,  need  and  purpose  of, 
7;   various  phases  of,  7-17 

Wages,  early  laws  relative  to  exemp- 
tion of,  2;  time  and  mode  of  pay- 
ment of,  12;  laws  relative  to  exemp- 
tion of,  from  attachment,  12-15; 
views  on  the  subject  of  exemption 
of,  13-15;  assignment  of,  15-17;  laws 
relative  to,  of  minors  and  married 
women,  17 

Weeks,  Elbert  W.,  bill  introduced  by, 
13,  14 

Wennerstrum,  C.  F.,  inspection  of  fac- 
tories by,  95-98,  105-106;  report  of, 
relative  to  child  labor,  115;  need  of 
child  labor  law  emphasized  by,  121; 
reference  to,  122 


INDEX 


283 


Whipple,  William  P.,  136 

Wilson,    Park    C,    Mine    Inspector, 

Winterbotham,    John    H.,    contract 

convict  labor  made  by,  19,  20 
Wisconsin,  child  labor  laws  in,  112 
Wisconsin     Legislative     Eeference 

partment,  5 
Women,  married,  lavp  relative  to  wages 


38 
for 


De- 


of,  17;  seats  for,  in  factories  and 
stores,   101-103 

Women 's  Christian  Temperance  Union, 
movement  for  child  labor  law  sup- 
ported by,  122 

Wright,  Robert  M.,  bill  introduced  by, 
15;  bill  defeated  through  efforts  of, 
73 


y>^jsj!iX]Sr 


liiitjJHfti 


e 


75m-7,'30 


214990 


YD  061(5 


